Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

SEVERN-TRENT WATER AUTHORITY BILL

As amended, considered.

To be read the Third time.

GREATER LONDON COUNCIL (MONEY) BILL (By Order)

GREATER LONDON COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL (By Order)

Orders for consideration, as amended, read.

Bills to be considered upon Tuesday next.

Oral Answers to Questions — EMPLOYMENT

North-West

Mr. Straw: asked the Secretary of State for Employment what are the latest figures for unemployment in Great Britain, and the North-West.

Mr. John Evans: asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he expects unemployment to increase or decrease in the North-West.

The Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Jim Lester): At 14 June, the numbers of people registered as unemployed in Great Britain and the North-West region were 1,281,102 and 200,701 respectively.
Future levels of unemployment will depend upon a number of factors which cannot be predicted with any degree of certainty. It is, therefore, not possible

to give any reliable forecast of the position over the next 12 months.

Mr. Straw: Is the Minister aware that the cuts in local authority spending which have been announced will certainly lead to the loss of 10,000 jobs in the North-West? Is he aware that any cuts in regional aid will place many thousands more jobs at risk? What estimate does he have of future unemployment in the North-West in the next year? What hope does he hold out to the 1,700 school leavers in my constituency and the 91,000 in the North-West as a whole who will be looking for jobs during the next month?

Mr. Lester: The youth opportunities programme is being expanded. The policies of the previous Government increased unemployment in the hon. Member's constituency by 246 per cent. Clearly, the policies of this Government are changing the whole atmosphere. We want to create real jobs based on services which people want.

Mr. Evans: Is the Minister aware that deindustrialisation has taken place at a faster rate in the North-West than in any other region of the country? Does he realise that his Government's policies are only adding to that process, with a consequential leap in unemployment which will take place in the North-West in the next 12 months?

Mr. Lester: As the hon. Member knows, I spent three days on Merseyside last week, during which time I visited his constituency. I was pleased to see that in his constituency, particularly, there were signs of useful industrial regeneration, some of which was being carried out without the aid of Government grants.

Mr. Dan Jones: May we have a breakdown of the unemployment figures in North-East Lancashire, from Blackburn to Barnoldswick?

Mr. Lester: I shall arrange for those figures to be given to the hon. Member if they are available.

Young Persons

Mr. Kilroy-Silk: asked the Secretary of State for Employment what is his forecast of the number of young people who will be unemployed in the North-West,


on Merseyside, in Kirkby and in Ormskirk at the end of 1979.

Mr. Jim Lester: My right hon. Friend has no such forecast, nor is it the Government's practice to issue this kind of forecast.

Mr. Kilroy-Silk: Is the Minister really saying that he has not had any discussions with the Secretary of State for Industry about the likely increase in unemployment in Ormskirk, which will result from the measures being announced today? Is that not a disgraceful admission which shows a cavalier and callous disregard for the future of young people in my constituency? Is it not also a sign of the Minister's own incompetence?

Mr. Lester: It would help the hon. Member's constituency if, instead of making rather wild statements in the House, he actually obtained the co-operation of trade unionists in Kirkby to allow the local authority there to take its full part in the youth opportunities programme. It is not able to do so at present, and it cannot spend its budget.

Mr. Robert Atkins: Does my hon. Friend recognise the the hon. Member for Ormskirk (Mr. Kilroy-Silk) does not represent the North-West as much as he believes? Many hon. Members who represent North-West constituencies recall that under the Labour Government unemployment rose and every constituency in the area was affected.

Mr. Lester: I thank my hon. Friend for those remarks. Under the previous Administration unemployment in the North-West rose by 40,000. The Government are taking the problem seriously. My right hon. Friend and I visited the area for three days, which was the longest ministerial visit that has been made under any Administration.

Mr. Golding: Does the Minister recognise that the slashing of regional grants will add substantially to youth unemployment, not only in the North-West but elsewhere? The withdrawal of the special temporary employment programme for many towns will bring great hardship to the many young people who are unemployed in those towns.

Mr. Lester: I do not wish to anticipate my right hon. Friend's statement, but the hon. Gentleman may find that some of

the measures that he will refer to will help those areas of high unemployment.

Enfield

Mr. Eggar: asked the Secretary of State for Employment how many job vacancies for skilled men are currently notified to the Ponders End jobcentre.

Mr. Jim Lester: The precise information is not available, but on 8 June there were 238 notified vacancies in the craft and similar occupations group remaining unfilled at the Enfield employment office, which serves the Ponders End area. That group does not necessarily include all skilled occupations.

Mr. Eggar: Is my hon. Friend aware that as a direct result of the previous Government's policies, which caused high taxation and a narrowing of wage differentials, there is a severe shortage of skilled workers in my constituency? Is he further aware that there is a great deal of support among skilled workers for the Government's trade union reforms?

Mr. Lester: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks. It is true, and the fact has been supported by many speeches from Labour Members, that the previous Administration's tax policies forced many skilled workers to take unskilled work because those jobs provided better rewards.

Mr. Hooley: Is the Minister aware that the shortage of skilled workers has been an endemic problem for the past 10 or 15 years? In the light of that, is it not stupid to cut back on the work of the Manpower Services Commission and to hamper its sensible reorganisation, which involves moving the headquarters to Sheffield?

Mr. Lester: There has been a serious shortage of skilled workers for longer than the past 15 years and a great deal is being done to try to correct that mismatch. Part of that work is looking at and renewing our training methods which, clearly, are not satisfying the demand.

Times Newspapers Limited

Mr. Christopher Price: asked the Secretary of State for Employment what further discussions he has had with Lord


Thomson of Fleet about the future of Times Newspapers Ltd.

The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. James Prior): I have had no discussions with Lord Thomson, but I am willing to meet all interested parties at any time.

Mr. Price: Will the right hon. Gentleman re-read the pledges given 13 years ago by Lord Thomson's father to the Monopolies Commission about putting the Thomson wealth behind The Times in the future? Now that there are rumours that Times Newspapers Limited may be sold to Rupert Murdoch or to somebody else, what action will the Minister take, using his statutory powers, if such a proposal is made?

Mr. Prior: That is a hypothetical question. I believe that it would be better to allow negotiations to proceed, in the hope that they will come to a satisfactory conclusion.

Jobcentres

Mr. James Hamilton: asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he is satisfied with the work of the jobcentres; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Jim Lester: Yes, Sir. My right hon. Friend is generally satisfied with the performance of jobcentres and he supports the plans of the Manpower Services Commission to modernise the employmnt service.

Mr. Hamilton: I am grateful for that reply, but there have been rumours about the possible curtailment of jobcentres. Will the Minister take it from me that jobcentres perform useful functions by looking after the interests of small employers who do not have the resources of large employers to carry out that important work? Will he make sure that the Government stand firm on retaining the jobcentres?

Mr. Lester: I agree with the hon. Gentleman's remarks. I have visited many jobcentres during the last few weeks. They do an excellent job and they work with good motivation.

Mr. Madel: On the question of placing disabled people in work as a result of the research done by jobcentres, will my right hon. Friend say what has been done

to assist with fares for disabled people travelling from rural areas to their jobs?

Mr. Lester: I cannot answer that question directly, but I shall look into it and let my hon. Friend have a reply.

Mr. Hawkins: I agree with my hon. Friend that jobcentres do useful jobs. Nevertheless, does he agree that in small rural areas and market towns to have a jobcentre and an employment centre within 200 or 300 yards of each other is a waste of manpower, resources, buildings and equipment?

Mr. Lester: That would seem to be the case. If my hon. Friend will give me the details I shall look into the matter.

TUC

Mr. Roy Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for Employment when he plans next to meet members of the Trades Union Congress to discuss unemployment problems.

Mr. Prior: I keep in regular contact with members of the TUC and we discuss a wide range of issues, including unemployment.

Mr. Hughes: Instead of attempting to restrict the hard-won rights of the trade unions, would it not be better to restrict the efforts of the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph) whose demented policies, such as withdrawing financial aid to the hard-pressed steel industry, together with major cuts in assistance to development areas, are likely to exacerbate the already serious unemployment problem?

Mr. Prior: I hope that the hon. Gentleman, instead of making those unfounded attacks upon my right hon. Friend, will take time off to help his constituents and the country to achieve full employment, which is what his Government failed singularly to do.

Mr. Neubert: What explanation can my right hon. Friend give for the fact that at a time of high and increasing unemployment there are thousands of unfilled jobs throughout the country? In London, the Post Office is 2,000 short although the post service is notorious. What action will the Government take to get those people off unemployment benefit and into unfilled jobs?

Mr. Prior: There is not a large enough gap between what people can earn in a job and what they can obtain by not working. By restoring differentials and decreasing the amount of tax that is paid and, perhaps, in the long run, by bringing short-term benefits within the tax net, a better balance will be achieved.

Mr. Ashley: What special consideration is being given to the older unemployed worker who, especially in areas of high unemployment, is demoralised at the prospect of being unemployed for the rest of his life?

Mr. Prior: That is a serious problem. The job release scheme that was introduced by the previous Government, and extended towards the end of their period of office, is being maintained. That will help the older unemployed person. Other than that, only a general improvement in the state of the economy will result in older unemployed persons obtaining jobs.

Mr. Marlow: Reverting to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Mr. Neubert) about the work-shy, will my right hon. Friend give consideration at some stage to the possibility of reducing unemployment benefit after a period of, say, six months to those who have been offered jobs and not accepted them although they could have done so?

Mr. Prior: We should keep the matter in proportion—[HON. MEMBERS " Hear, hear ".] When Labour Members start to cheer that sort of remark they should remember the great indignation that is felt by those who work hard about those who do not bother to work at all. The Government are trying to see that more people are called in for reviews of their unemployment benefit where they have refused to take jobs, in the hope that that will encourage them to make more effort.

Mr. Benn: Has the Secretary of State given consideration to the TUC argument about the flood of manufactured imports that are financed by our oil revenue that have led to a major balance of payments deficit, combined with the withdrawal of Government support for British industry? That withdrawal will accelerate de-industrialisation and ultimately prevent the country from earning its living or employing its people.

Mr. Prior: Without accepting the last part of the right hon. Gentleman's question, the House will remember that he was singularly unable to convince his own colleagues about his alternative strategy. Therefore, I do not know why he is trying to convince me.

Statistics

Mr. Canavan: asked the Secretary of State for Employment what is the current rate of unemployment.

Mr. Prior: At 14 June, the unemployment rate in Great Britain was 5·4 per cent.

Mr. Canavan: Does the Minister admit that well over 100,000 jobs will be destroyed as a direct result of the regional development cuts, redundancies in steel and shipbuilding, and the emasculation of the National Enterprise Board and Scottish Development Agency? Is it not about time that the Minister got off his knees and started to fight unemployment, instead of genuflecting to the insane doctrines of the mad monk, who initially did not even have the guts to come to this House and meet Members of Parliament face to face?

Mr. Prior: No, Sir, I do not admit any such thing. I believe that the hon. Gentleman could do his constituents more of a service if he debated these matters seriously rather than make the kind of Pavlovian noises that we just heard.

Mr. Beith: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the unemployment rate in the Amble and Alnwick area of Northumberland is substantially above the national rate that he quoted and that this is not a special development area? Is there some process by which the Department can apprise the Development of Industry of unemployment black spots in order to get something done about the position?

Mr. Prior: Yes, Sir, I am in constant touch with my right hon. Friend to see that regional policy takes into account the problems of unemployment. The present problem of regional policy is that it seems to have been designed more to suit by-elections held during the lifetime of the Labour Government than to solve the serious problems of unemployment.

Dr. McDonald: Will the right hon. Gentleman give a categoric assurance to the House that he will not further increase unemployment by further reducing the job protection rights of employees beyond those already in the pipeline, and that he will neither reduce nor abolish the maternity leave provisions in the Employment Protection Act?

Mr. Prior: On the last point, the hon. Lady should wait until we produce our proposals for changes in the Employment Protection Act. I should have thought that that legislation was recognised by many employers, and indeed trade unionists, to be one of the greatest deterrents to full employment.

European Community (Ministerial Meeting)

Mr. Skinner: asked the Secretary of State for Employment when he next expects to meet his EEC colleagues; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Prior: I expect to meet my EEC colleagues at the next Council of Ministers for Labour and Social Affairs. This is planned for Tuesday 27 November 1979.

Mr. Skinner: Will the Minister tell the people over there that while the Common Market gravy train lumbers on, with its newest passengers on board today, the so-called MEPs, the Common Market policies on subjects such as steel, together with the Tory policies that are being carried out in this House, are resulting in the devastation of towns such as Shotton and Corby? Is it not a fact that a Tory Government are interested in job creation schemes for those in the Common Market and dole queues for British workers?

Mr. Prior: The answer to that supplementary question is " Rubbish "

Mr. Haselhurst: Will my right hon. Friend consider, when he next meets his Community colleagues, whether the time is ripe for some initiative on a Community-wide training scheme for young people, under which young people can travel within the Community to obtain experience, thus achieving common European standards of training?

Mr. Prior: Yes, Sir. There is a small scheme which is now operated and which

we should like to see expanded. There is also a need to see that our schemes for the training of young people and for helping the older unemployed fit more readily into the schemes which the EEC social fund will support. I believe that we can do a lot better than we have been doing in the last year or two, although we did very well before that.

Mr. John Grant: In view of the enormous imbalance in the Community budget and its adverse effect on this country, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman, when he attends the next Council of Ministers for Labour and Social Affairs, to press for a bigger and better share of the European social fund? Will he bear in mind that the announcement that is to be made later today by the Secretary of State for Industry will make that kind of assistance even more desirable?

Mr. Prior: I do not wish to say anything about my right hon. Friend's statement which will be made later today. However, the hon. Gentleman is right to make that comment. We need to obtain more resources out of the social fund. This will mean changing to some extent some of our statistical evidence and also tailoring our policies more to suit the social fund. We must seek to achieve that end, and we shall do so.

Microprocessors

Mr. Buchan: asked the Secretary of State for Employment what consideration is being given to the compiling of statistics related to unemployment arising out of developments in the use of microprocessing technology.

Mr. Jim Lester: It would not be practicable to compile unemployment statistics to relate to particular causes of unemployment. The greater threat to employment is if United Kingdom industry fails to adapt to new technology, and I welcome the TUC's recognition of this in its report " Employment and Technology ".

Mr. Buchan: In view of the statement that this would not be practicable, may I remind the Minister that this process is already undertaken in France? Is he aware that, taken together with the devastating Tory cuts in industry, the unemployment to which I refer in my original


question is one of the most serious matters the nation faces? We are importing as much microtechnology as we are exporting, and the Government are showing appalling complacency.

Mr. Lester: The Government are not complacent, because my Department set up a study group in microelectronics last July, the report of which we expect in the next two or three months.

Mr. Ian Lloyd: Although the social problems inherent in any structural unemployment must always be taken seriously, may I ask the Minister to take every opportunity to emphasise the enormous potential which this device offers the human race for eliminating both intellectual and physical drudgery?

Mr. Lester: I agree with my hon. Friend. We believe that British industry, by using its initiative, will be able to adapt better to this technology than will our competitors.

Mr. Strang: Is the Minister aware that against a background of policies that can lead only to a massive increase in unemployment the statement by his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State this morning, and his own modest support for the TUC's recent report on microelectronics, represent small steps in the right direction? Will he assure the House that the Government will not sabotage the Labour Government's announcement on this area? Will the Government put their weight behind efforts to modernise British industry in applying these developments to important industries, such as machine tools?

Mr. Lester: I am pleased to give that assurance.

Industrial Disputes (Finance)

Mr. Marlow: asked the Secretary of State for Employment when he will be discussing with the trades union leadership the financing of strikes.

The Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Patrick Mayhew):: During the course of future discussions, but not immediately.

Mr. Marlow: In view of the fact that my constituents, in common with many others, resent paying taxes to the families of strikers for strikes that will increase

the prices that most people will have to pay, in view of the fact that the trade unions in this country are worth more than £300 million, in view of the fact that before the changes which the Labour Party introduced strikers' families did not starve, in view of the fact that power is money and that the more Government money the unions get the better able are irresponsible unions to sustain strikes, will my hon. and learned Friend reassure my constituents and the House that as soon as it is proper to do so he will introduce measures to make sure that the trade unions have to finance their own strikes to a larger extent?

Mr. Mayhew: I am aware of my hon. Friend's interest in this matter and of the early-day motion which was tabled in his name. Many people consider it only right that trade unions should bear a fair share of supporting the families of members on strike. We shall be discussing this matter with the TUC. For the moment, the discussions in which my right hon. Friend is engaged relate to even more important matters.

Mr. Flannery: Does the Minister not realise that the introduction of Draconian measures against wives and children of strikers can only deepen the terrible problems towards which the present Government are now moving? Does he also appreciate that it would be far more sensible to try to abolish the lousy conditions in many workshops to ensure that working people have a reasonable wage, instead of having to put up with measures which the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) has wanted all his life?

Mr. Mayhew: Nobody is suggesting that the families of people on strike should receive less support. All that is being suggested is that the trade unions whose members initiate a strike should bear a fair share of the contributions.

Mr. Dorrell: I recognise the undoubtedly strong feelings of my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow), but does the Minister accept that the Government need the co-operation of trade unions in ensuring support for a broad measure of their policies? Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that it is more important to secure that co-operation than to seek


agreement on the measures proposed by my hon. Friend?

Mr. Mayhew: The Government believe that all their proposals are sensible. By discussing these matters with all concerned we hope to achieve a wide measure of support.

South Shields

Dr. David Clark: asked the Secretary of State for Employment what plans he has to stimulate employment in South Shields.

Mr. Jim Lester: It is the Government's policy to stimulate the creation of new jobs by restoring incentives, encouraging efficiency and creating the climate in which industry and commerce can flourish. South Shields continues to benefit from the full range of special employment and training measures, and from assistance under the Industry Act.

Dr. Clark: I find myself perplexed at the answer. Bearing in mind that local government and shipbuilding are the two key employment areas in South Shields, can the Minister explain how the Government's plans to cut back public expenditure in local government and shipbuilding will help employment prospects in South Shields where almost one man in six is already without a job?

Mr. Lester: It is difficult to comment on the specific question of local government in South Shields. Surely the hon. Gentleman recognises that shipbuilding is a national and European problem. There is no way one can protect shipbuilding when people do not require ships. What is important is that all the measures exist to try achieve a better base for industry in his constituency.

TUC

Mr. Adley: asked the Secretary of State for Employment what consultations he has had on forthcoming legislation with the TUC.

Mr. Mayhew: My right hon. Friend has already had a number of informal discussions with the TUC and hopes to have further discussions shortly on the basis of the working papers which were published last week.

Mr. Adley: I thank my hon. and learned Friend for that reply, but is he

aware that there is a great deal more support in the rank and file of the trade union movement for the Government's proposals than might appear from the pronouncements of leaders of unions affiliated to the TUC? What practical steps can my hon. and learned Friend take to ensure that the voice of the rank and file trade unionists who support these proposals is listened to?

Mr. Mayhew: My hon. Friend is correct in pointing to the wide degree of support among trade union members for these proposals. The measure of that support was seen in the result of the general election when millions of trade union members voted for the Conservative Party whose manifesto set out exactly the proposals which are the subject of the working papers.

Mr. Maclennan: In view of the Government's hope that the trade unions will exercise restraint on wages in the forthcoming year, can the hon. and learned Gentleman say what consultation the Government have had with the trade unions about the proposed abolition of the Price Commission in a Bill published last week?

Mr. Mayhew: I am not able at this point to give a detailed answer to the hon. Gentleman, but I will write to him about the matter. It was made clear in our manifesto and in the election campaign that we did not support the Price Commission and that its days were very probably numbered.

Mr. Dykes: Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that to get the right balance in these measures proposed for discuscussion with the TUC negotiations will need to take a substantial time? It would be wise to reach final decisions later rather than sooner.

Mr. Mayhew: The Government are determined that there should be ample time for genuine and substantial consultations. I agree with my hon. Friend.

Mr. Harold Walker: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman make clear the status of these working papers? Are they Green Papers? Are they consultative documents? Are they White Papers? To what extent will they form the basis for genuine consultation rather than a mere willingness to listen by the Government with no


change? Will the hon. and learned Gentleman confirm that the contents of these working papers represent only a small part of the subjects under review by the Government, including maternity provisions, guaranteed pay, the appointment of worker safety representatives and the terms of reference of ACAS?

Mr. Mayhew: The right hon. Gentleman should know that the working papers are exactly what they say. They are working papers representing the Government's proposals for the implementation of measures set out in their election manifesto. They are genuine working papers and a basis for genuine discussions. As my right hon. Friend has said this afternoon, we shall also be bringing forward shortly proposals with regard to reform of the Employment Protection Act, especially those provisions which bear damagingly on employment.

Statistics

Mr. Knox: asked the Secretary of State for Employment how many people were out of work at the most recent count.

Mr. Prior: At 14 June, the number of people registered as unemployed in Great Britain was 1,281,102.

Mr. Knox: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the figure would have been exactly the same if the Labour Party had won the general election? Will he also confirm that an extra person joined the dole queue every three and a half minutes when the Labour Government were in office?

Mr. Prior: I confirm the second part of what my hon. Friend says. On the first part of his question, I sometimes wonder whether the Budget and the arrival of a Conservative Government have not helped the figures rather than hindered them.

Mr. Rooker: Will the right hon. Gentleman say by how much that figure will increase following the written answer to be given later today to the hon. Member for Havant and Waterloo (Mr. Lloyd) about the Government's proposals on Meriden?

Mr. Prior: All I know is that, despite the frantic efforts by the Labour Party in government to save a number of jobs

for a short period of time, the number of unemployed went inexorably upwards. That is a situation that we do not wish to see.

Society of Lithographic Artists, Designers and Engravers

Mr. David Atkinson: asked the Secretary of State for Employment what plans he has for an inquiry into the activities of the Society of Lithographic Artists, Designers and Engravers; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Mayhew: My right hon. Friend appointed Mr. Andrew Leggatt QC on 7 June to inquire into
 recent industrial relations development, including in particular union recruitment activities, in the artwork, advertising and associated industries; and to report ".
I understand that Mr. Leggatt is now receiving evidence from interested parties, and is aiming to report by early autumn.

Mr. Atkinson: I welcome my hon. and learned Friend's reply, but does he accept that the activities of the Society of Lithographic Artists, Designers and Engravers have shown that our present labour laws allow trade unions to force employees to join by threatening their jobs? Will he undertake, as part of this inquiry, to receive evidence from management which is prevented from managing by the unions, which even determine the customers with whom management is allowed to deal?

Mr. Mayhew: The question of the evidence to be received is a matter for Mr. Leggatt. It would not be right for the Government to intervene. I would expect, however, that evidence from the quarter suggested by my hon. Friend will certainly be given. On the first part of his question, it was the widespread unease about recruiting activities of the two unions concerned that led to the commitment to set up a similar inquiry to this.

Mr. Cryer: Is this inquiry part of the general attack by the Conservative Government on the trade union movement? Will the Minister explain how the Government intend to meet representations from the trade union movement on proposed changes in the legislation set out in the consultation document? Is he prepared to assure the House that if the


trade union movement makes strong representations against the Government's iniquitous proposals the Government will change their views?

Mr. Mayhew: The Government have no reason to attack a movement that contains so many millions of their own supporters. If representations are made to the Government against any of the proposals, they will be carefully and genuinely considered. The hon. Gentleman will recognise that these working papers contain no proposal that was not foreshadowed in the manifesto. There is a commitment to the broad strategy of the proposals. At the same time, there is a genuine willingness and anxiety to listen to what is said to us about them.

Special Temporary Employment Programme

Mr. Haselhurst: asked the Secretary of State for Employment what representations he has received about the future of the special temporary employment programme.

Mr. Jim Lester: I have received various representations from organisations and scheme sponsors.

Mr. Haselhurst: Has not the special temporary employment programme always had a dubious validity? Would it not be better to concentrate resources on the training of young people between the ages of 16 and 18 in the hope that they would either then get jobs or, benefiting from the experience, take up some of the vacant places in our polytechnics?

Mr. Lester: I believe that the programme has a valuable contribution to make. We have concentrated the programme in areas with deep-seated problems. It is interesting that only 44 per cent. of the cases last year came from the ranks of long-term unemployed. I intend to improve on that.

Mr. Arthur Davidson: Is the Minister aware that the special temporary employment programme was of inestimable value in North-East Lancashire? It had the support of employers; it had the support of the trade unions. It undoubtedly helped to bring down unemployment and create jobs in that area. Will the Minister consider that in the light of the general

plan to diminish the programme in intermediate areas?

Mr. Lester: I do not promise that I will look at that question. I am sure that the hon. and learned Gentleman recognises the overall point that we are concentrating more places in areas where the need is greatest.

Mr. Golding: It may be the case that effort is being concentrated where the need is greatest, but many areas, where the need is very great indeed, are being totally ignored. Young people over 19 in those areas will suffer very much in the coming winter as a result of the withdrawal of the special temporary employment programme.

Mr. Lester: As the hon. Member knows, all the schemes are reviewed annually. If what the hon. Gentleman says is true, it will show in next year's review.

Unemployed Persons

Mr. Edwin Wainwright: asked the Secretary of State for Employment what are the numbers of males, females, boys and girls, respectively, registered as unemployed at the latest available date; and if he will make a statement on what action he is taking to find suitable jobs for these unemployed persons.

Mr. Jim Lester: At 14 June, 887,211 males and 393,891 females were registered as unemployed in Great Britain. These figures include 74,731 male and 62,379 female school leavers under 18 years of age. The Manpower Services Commission helps to find suitable jobs for unemployed people by placing them directly into permanent employment through its advisory and placement services, by supporting—either directly or indirectly—a wide range of traning facilities and, together with my Department, by operating the special employment and training measures which provide worthwhile training, work experience and jobs which are concentrated in areas of greatest need.

Mr. Wainwright: Does the hon. Gentleman believe that the Government's policies as outlined in the Budget will provide more jobs in the future and therefore help his Department? What is the Department doing, in discussions


with the Cabinet, to ensure that more jobs are provided in areas such as mine where the unemployment rate is 9 or 10 per cent.? That rate has been high for some time and is bound to rise unless the Government change their policies.

Mr. Lester: I believe that our policies will provide more jobs. Certainly the Labour Government's policies did not do that. They doubled unemployment in five years.

Dr. Hampson: Since many industries are still crying out for skilled labour, will my hon. Friend guarantee the role of the training advisers at the industrial training boards? Will he ensure that they continue to be recruited since they represent the cutting edge of the training programme? They are suffering cutbacks, while the Manpower Services Commission's staff are being protected.

Mr. Lester: I shall examine that question.

Mr. Kilroy-Silk: When will unemployment reach 2 million?

Mr. Lester: One does not make forecasts.

Mr. Greville Janner: How many of the unemployed men are aged between 60 and 65?

Mr. Lester: It is impossible to estimate the numbers while at the Dispatch Box. I shall give the hon. and learned Gentleman accurate figures later.

Manpower Services Commission

Mr. Hooley: asked the Secretary of State for Employment what role he envisages for the Manpower Services Commission in the next five years.

Mr. Prior: When I met the Manpower Services Commissioners on 20 June I made it clear to them that I saw an important role for MSC in operating its important and continuing employment and training programmes.

Mr. Hooley: Does the Secretary of State agree that the training, retraining and redeployment of workers is of cardinal importance for our future prosperity and effectiveness as an industrial nation? Does he also agree that the Manpower Services Commission will function more

effectively if it is allowed to concentrate its work in the specially built building in Sheffield, which was designed for that purpose, rather than its staff being scattered around odd premises in London?

Mr. Prior: The hon. Gentleman forgets that there must be some real incentives and differentials if skilled people are to follow a skill. It is no good training many people for skills if they then do unskilled jobs. A review of dispersal policy has been taking place. Recently I met the unions involved. I have been examining carefully and sympathetically the views of those unions. An announcement will be made shortly.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that he has sufficient control over the activities and expenditure of the Manpower Services Commission?

Mr. Prior: I do not think that I could ever he satisfied with that. However, I am very satisfied indeed with the work of the chairman of that Commission and of the Commissioners. There is always room for improvement in Government service and in organisations such as the MSC.

Mr. Varley: Does the Secretary of State recall that when he met the Society of Civil and Public Servants on 29 June to discuss MSC dispersal he said that he would press his Cabinet colleagues to complete the review quickly and that he would give it a decision before the end of July? Will he keep that promise?

Mr. Prior: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that the Manpower Services Commission is performing the right role? Is he aware that while it is building jobcentres at vast expense in city centres, where the private sector could achieve the same purpose more effectively, it is reluctant to provide any form of employment service in isolated large housing estates such as that at Partington in my constituency, which it has totally ignored?

Mr. Prior: Nobody should consider that a Government body, or an extra-Government body, is working perfectly. I think that there is room for improvement and perhaps a different emphasis from the Commission.
Jobcentres always come under attack. In some respects that is justified. However, generally I believe that the Commission is carrying out its job efficiently. It is seeking to improve training, which is important, but it is not the whole answer.

PRIME MINISTER (ENGAGEMENTS)

Mr. Whitney: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 17 July.

The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): In addition to duties in this House I shall have meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. This evening I hope to have an Audience of Her Majesty The Queen.

Mr. Whitney: Will the Prime Minister confirm that she has had the opportunity of reading press reports of the decision by 1,300 members of the Transport and General Workers' Union to participate in a private health scheme offered by their employers? Does she agree that this is yet another indication of the widespread view that there should be greater freedom of choice to participate in health schemes and similar enterprises?

The Prime Minister: I read the reports. I think that it is an excellent arrangement, and I hope that other branches will follow suit. The arrangement will bring great benefit to the members of that union and will also bring more money into the National Health Service.

Mr. Charles R. Morris: During her busy day, will the Prime Minister take time to read again the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Budget speech on 12 June, and in particular the moving and emotional part of it in which he said that he did not propose to increase the duty on paraffin because it was used primarily and domestically by pensioners? How does the right hon. Lady reconcile that speech with the action of the Secretary of State for Energy who, on 11 July, removed all price control from domestic paraffin? Is this the first and fastest U-turn of the present Administration?

The Prime Minister: I am only too happy to read my right hon. and learned Friend's excellent speech again. The Sec-

retary of State for Energy did not put a tax on paraffin. However, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, there was a great shortage of paraffin in the shops. The choice was either to release price control or not to have paraffin at all.

Mr. Dubs: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 17 July.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave earlier.

Mr. Dubs: Will the Prime Minister find time to remind herself of the commitment in the Conservative Party manifesto not to cut spending on the National Health Service? Will she reimburse the National Health Service for the extra burden of VAT on its purchases of equipment and supplies?

The Prime Minister: We shall honour the commitment to maintain expenditure on the National Health Service in real terms. As the hon. Gentleman knows, we have to raise money to spend on these expensive health services. We chose to raise that money through indirect rather than direct tax.

Mr. Marlow: Will my right hon. Friend have time today, on behalf of the vast majority of trade union members whose views and aspirations she, above all in the country, represents, to suggest that trade unionists might spend some time this summer in Germany examining the standards of living of trade unionists in that country? Will she urge them to make comparisons between the standards of living there and here, to examine the role and activities of trade unions in Germany and to draw the necessary lessons? Perhaps my right hon. Friend might also be able to provide a little precious Government money to help them in that task.

Mr. Russell Kerr: A trainee SS man.

The Prime Minister: I hope that increasing numbers of trade unionists will make such visits. I have said frequently from this Dispatch Box that if we want a German standard of living we must have a German standard of work.

Mr. Ennals: Has the Prime Minister, during the day, come to a decision on the Government's policy on the admission of more refugees from Vietnam, including


some of those whom we hope will be picked up from the sea by the mercy ship? When will the House have a statement on the Government's policy in this respect?

The Prime Minister: I saw the small petition that was handed in to me at No. 10 this morning by some of the children. We hope and expect that there will be a statement tomorrow.

Mr. Adley: On the question of trade union membership, what plans does my right hon. Friend have to ensure that people outside the hierarchy of the TUC have an opportunity to express their views to the Government on the Government's proposals for trade union reform?

The Prime Minister: Judging by the numbers of people who come to see me and my right hon. Friend, I believe that they have an opportunity to express their views. However, I shall draw the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment to the request that others as well as the TUC should have the chance to represent their views.

Mr. Donald Stewart: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 17 July.

The Prime Minister: I refer the right hon. Member to the reply which I gave earlier.

Mr. Stewart: Is the right hon. Lady aware that her Government's policies will divide the United Kingdom into two nations in a way unknown since Disraeli's day, and that the impending regional aid cuts will accentuate that trend? Is the country to be carved up, with the South-East of England being set against the rest?

The Prime Minister: I cannot accept the right hon. Gentleman's views for one moment. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry will be making a statement shortly, and it would be better not to comment further until we have heard that statement.

Mr. Budgen: Will my right hon. Friend take the opportunity today to make a statement about immigration? Does she agree that one of the reasons why many people, particularly in the

urban areas, voted Conservative at the last election was that they agreed with the detailed promises in the Tory Party's manifesto? Does she agree also that there should be an announcement about a change in the immigration rules before the House rises for the Summer Recess?

The Prime Minister: We shall, of course, be implementing the promises that were made in the Conservative manifesto, but I cannot promise an announcement before the Summer Recess. I shall be frank with my hon. Friend. We do not plan to have an announcement on immigration before the recess.

Mr. George: Will the Prime Minister have time to meet the chairman of the Tote to discuss with him the accusation that bets have been placed by a subsidiary of the Tote after the result of a race has been known, whether there is a secret laundering system for these late bets and how many punters have been swindled out of their rightful winnings? Will she arrange for a public inquiry to be held into the allegations of malpractice at the Tote?

The Prime Minister: I am not very expert at betting. May I therefore pass the buck to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, who may know a little more about it?

Mr. Aitken: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 17 July.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave earlier.

Mr. Aitken: Will my right hon. Friend find time today to intervene to prevent the threatened closure of an important regional airline company, Air Kent? Is she aware that this successful company, which does not need public money, is endangered only because of minor administrative interdepartmental squabbles? Will she take the opportunity to remind officialdom that it is now a priority of Government policy to assist small businesses and private enterprise by cutting through red tape wherever possible?

The Prime Minister: I have received representations from my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, East (Mr. Aitken) and a number of my other hon. Friends


about this company and about the position that obtains at the airfield from which it operates. I understand that the problem is that it can operate successfully and profitably, but that it will not be allowed to do so unless there is an immigration officer on duty. If that is the case, it is one of which I am aware. I am looking into the matter personally in such a way that I hope it will not be necessary for my hon. Friend to repeat his question again before the House rises for the recess.

Mr. Winnick: Is the Prime Minister aware that many people are saying that if so much damage has been done in two and a half months in terms of jobs, cuts and prices, what on earth will be Britain's position in four or five years if the right hon. Lady and her crew remain in office? Would it not be in the country's interest for her to give way to someone who is less of an extremist than she is?

The Prime Minister: The damage in terms of jobs and increasing taxes was inflicted by the previous Government, who doubled unemployment, increased taxes and landed this country in the position where our growfth, compared with that of our competitors, was a disgrace. It is because of that Government's record that we are changing the whole strategy in a more positive direction.

Mr. Renton: Has my right hon. Friend read the report in some of today's press that the TUC intends to oppose the Government's changes in industrial relations law on the ground that the proposals, with the banning of secondary picketing, might lead to an overall curtailment of the right to strike? Will she make it clear to the TUC that that is not the Government's intention and that, moreover, it is the wish of the Secretary of State for Employment to be open for consultation on the detail of these changes, if not on the principle?

The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has put a consultative document to the TUC, but I must make it clear that we are pledged to bring in legislation against secondary picketing. Most people who remember what happened last winter will be fully behind that determination. The precise detail is a matter for consultation.

CBI

Mr. Straw: asked the Prime Minister when she intends next to meet representatives of the Confederation of British Industry.

The Prime Minister: No dates have yet been arranged.

Mr. Straw: When the Prime Minister eventually meets the CBI, what reply will she give it to its letter—[HON. MEMBERS: " Reading."] Of course I am reading. It is the letter that the CBI wrote to the Secretary of State for Industry. What reply will she give to the CBI's letter which says that the CBI opposes any reduction in regional development grants? What does she think of friends like that who are so quick to desert her and her right hon. Friend in their hour of need?

The Prime Minister: I take more notice of letters when they are written after a statement rather than before. The hon. Gentleman asked what reply I shall send. The CBI welcomed the Budget's provisions and is doing everything that it can to operate the Budget strategy, knowing that the successful manufacturing and commercial industries of this country have to supply the subsidies which so many people want.

Mr. David Steel: How will the Prime Minister explain to the CBI or anybody else the discrepancy between the Conservative Party's election commitment to encourage the development of new industries in certain parts of the country and the downgrading of those areas from development area status, as will be announced this afternoon, and the fact that market interest rates have gone up to 16 per cent?

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman asked his question as though the only way in which a small business can get started is with a Government subsidy. If that were so, this country would never have been a highly successful industrial nation.

Mr. Alan Clark: If my right hon. Friend does not intend to authorise a statement about changes in the immigration rules until the winter, will not that lead to a possible beat-the-ban rush, given


the long time that will elapse before the announcement is made, which will heighten the anxieties and possibly the disillusionment in the areas most affected?

The Prime Minister: I can only reply that it is our intention to make a statement when we return after the recess.

Mr. Leighton: Is the Prime Minister aware that many of us are worried by the threats from non-parliamentary bodies to push her around? Is she further aware that I have just had a letter from the CBI stating that it expects her to take firm action on labour relations, and goes on to say that unless she does she will be very sharply pushed by that body?

The Prime Minister: It will find it very difficult.

Mr. Cryer: A moment ago the Prime Minister said that she welcomed letters after statements, not before. Does she mean that any consultations with the TUC are merely cosmetic, that she has entirely made up her mind to attack the trade union movement through legislation, and that, whatever the trade union movement says in making reasonable representations she will take no notice of it until the statement on the legislation is made?

The Prime Minister: I have made up my mind to carry out the Conservative Party manifesto. The details are for consultation.

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS

Mr. Rooker: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I do not wish to delay the House, and I know that you, Sir, are not responsible for answers from the Dispatch Box, but you will have heard the Leader of the House say distinctly, yesterday—since you were in the Chair at the time—that no more crucial statements would be made by written answer. Yet today, Mr. Speaker, via a written answer to the hon. Member for Havant and Waterloo (Mr. Lloyd), the Government have made an announcement about Meriden which, in effect, will cause it to close and increase joblessness in the West Midlands. What protection do we on the Opposition Benches have when that sort of policy is pursued by the Secretary of State—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The way that the Government answer questions is not my responsibility.

REGIONAL INDUSTRIAL POLICY

The Secretary of State for Industry (Sir Keith Joseph): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement on regional industrial policy.
The Government have completed their review of regional industrial policy and selective financial assistance in Great Britain within the context of their overall economic aims and the steps being taken to encourage national industrial vitality and prosperity. As the House knows, the Government seek to create conditions in which the whole country can prosper, including those areas with severe economic problems.
As part of our general framework for industry, we propose to continue with a strong—but more selective—regional industrial policy. We shall maintain the three-tier structure of the assisted areas—that is, special development areas, development areas and intermediate areas—as well as the existing instruments of regional industrial policy, but concentrating on those parts of the country with the most intractable problems of unemployment.
The assisted areas currently cover over 40 per cent. of the employed population. We propose over a transitional period of three years to reduce this to around 25 per cent., in order to focus on the remaining assisted areas more effectively, and to treat different parts of the country more consistently and fairly.
We propose immediately to upgrade a small number of areas to take account of their changed circumstances. A number of special development areas and development areas will be downgraded by one step for similar reasons, but these changes will not take effect until 1 August 1980. We propose that from 1 August 1982 a number of these areas should be further downgraded, but that of these those due to become non-assisted areas should be the subject of a special review before such descheduling takes final effect. In addition, we propose that a number of intermediate areas should become non-assisted areas in three years' time.
Full details of these proposed changes in assisted areas boundaries and gradings are given in my written answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Lee) and are available in the


Vote Office, the Printed Paper Office and the Libraries of both Houses.
We propose to maintain regional development grant at its present level of 22 per cent. in the special development areas, so that assistance will not be reduced in the areas of greatest need. In development areas we propose that the rate of grant should be reduced from 20 per cent. to 15 per cent. on buildings, plant and machinery provided after 1 August 1980. We also propose that the 20 per cent. regional development grant on buildings provided in intermediate areas should be abolished from the same date. Finally, we propose to raise the minimum levels from £100 for plant and machinery and £1,000 for buildings to £500 and £5,000, respectively, in respect of expenditure defrayed on or from 18 July 1979.
Full details of the transitional arrangements are given in my written answer to the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne.
Our objective is to maintain reasonable stability in the framework of regional investment incentives and to avoid abrupt changes.
In future, regional selective assistance under section 7 of the Industry Act 1972 will be provided in the assisted areas only where it is necessary to enable projects to go ahead.

Mr. Beith: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Secretary of State referred to copies of a statement being available in the Vote Office. A number of hon. Members are waiting at the Vote Office, which claims no knowledge of the statement, and it is not available.

Sir K. Joseph: The copies are on the way to the Vote Office now, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. David Young: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Will you consider suspending the sitting until the papers are available?

Mr. Cyril Smith: Further to the point of order—

Mr. Speaker: Order. May I say that I should have thought that it would be wiser to hear the statement and then to take any points of order. [Interruption.] Order. I can then take points of order, when we shall all be better informed.

Mr. John Silkin: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. A number of hon. Members on both sides will not know how their constituents are affected.

Several Hon. Membersrose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. There is nothing that I can do about this point of order until we have heard the statement. I shall then know.

Mr. McNamara: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order. There are plenty of points of order being raised, but may I say that I honestly think that the House will be better served when it has heard the statement. There can then be points of order, and they will lose no validity by waiting the extra five minutes.

Mr. John Silkin: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. If the written answer has not appeared in the Vote Office by the time the Secretary of State has completed his statement, will you then consider suspending the sitting?

Mr. Beith: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. The difficulty for hon. Members is that there are many—there were certainly many when I was there—at the Vote Office window who would like to catch your eye to ask a question on the Secretary of State's statement. They have been courteously informed by the right hon. Gentleman that he would refer to their constituencies, but they are not now in a position to know whether their constituents will be affected, and if they go out at the conclusion of the statement in order to find out, they will lose their opportunity to ask their questions. Is this not what lies behind the failure to deliver the papers to the Vote Office, and do not Back Benchers have a right to be protected?

Mr. Robert C. Brown: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Yesterday the Leader of the House gave a clear undertaking that he would endeavour to have the answer to which the Secretary of State referred available in the Vote Office before the statement. Transparently, this has not happened, and the right hon. Gentleman has referred to a written answer that is not available to Members at the Vote Office.
I submit, Mr. Speaker, first, that it is quite monstrous that the Government should try to override the House by replying on an important policy decision through the subterfuge of a written answer. Secondly, Mr. Speaker, may I submit that it is monstrous that the sitting should not stand suspended until we have the facts before us?

Sir K. Joseph: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker—

Mr. Ogden: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it not reasonable to suggest that in these circumstances, in response to a fair number of hon. Members, you have the power to suspend the sitting to allow the papers to come forward and then allow the Secretary of State to continue? He has come to the House to give us information. May we have a chance to get it before we question him?

Mr. Speaker: It is possible that the Minister knows for how long the delay will continue—if there has been a delay. I want to help the House to get its business completed. I have had a request from the Opposition Front Bench to which I am prepared to give consideration after the statement.

Sir K. Joseph: I am very sorry that there has been any delay. It was because of the importance of putting into hon. Member's hands all the documents concerned so that they would know about their constituencies that it was orginally discussed that there should be a writteen answer followed by a debate. I am not one who tries to avoid discussion in the House. The documents are now available. The House will appreciate that there are 14 pages in the written answer and that there is a great deal to cover. I hope that I shall be allowed to continue with the statement.

Mr. Alan Williams: There are 14 pages annexed to the answer. That means, inevitably, that hon. Members will need considerable time to absorb their contents. They will need to absorb them in conjunction with the various policy changes that the right hon. Gentleman is outlining. Therefore, it becomes a farce to continue with the statement until we have the documents.

Sir K. Joseph: On a point of order. Mr. Speaker. It is precisely because

there is so much to absorb that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House is arranging for a debate next week, which was always intended after a statement of this importance.
I was saying, Mr. Speaker, that our objective is to maintain reasonable stability in the framework of regional investment incentives—

Mr. Buchan: Mr. Buchan rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The House will obviously have an opportunity for thorough questioning and debate on this very question. We have been told so. A statement is being made and the House can act accordingly later. That is as I see it.

Mr. Buchan: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The statement does not mention areas but includes a series of definitions and percentages. None of this is meaningful unless we know the specific areas involved. Questioning will be meaningless unless we are aware of the areas concerned. Many requests have been made that you, Mr. Speaker, suspend the sitting for the dignity of the House as well as for the better furtherance of our business, and I reiterate those requests.

Mr. Speaker: I think that the dignity of the House will best be served now by hearing the statement.

Sir K. Joseph: In future, regional selective assistance under section 7 of the Industry Act 1972 will be provided in the assisted areas only where it is necessary to enable projects to go ahead. Particular attention will be paid to the provision of more productive and more secure jobs. I shall say something about the future of national selective assistance under section 8 of the Act in a moment.
We consider that factory building is a useful and relatively inexpensive instrument of regional industrial policy, and this will continue. We intend, however, to secure a greater element of self-financing.
We have also reviewed the operation of industrial development certificates in the light of our objective of reducing the burden of Government controls on industry. I am satisfied that the IDC procedure can still be useful in identifying large projects which are potentially


mobile. I propose, however, to abolish IDCs in the intermediate areas and to raise the exemption limit to 50,000 sq. ft. in the non-assisted areas, including the South-East.
We estimate that these changes will by 1982–83 lead to total savings of £233 million in the expenditure of £609 million on regional development grants, regional selective assistance and factory building projected in the 1978 White Paper revalued at 1979 survey prices. Although expenditure on regional incentives will continue to be substantial, I must emphasise that regional differences will not be reduced simply by redistributing money from taxpayers; there needs also to be local enterprise and plenty of co-operation in making businesses competitive and profitable. Nothing will do more for the prosperity of a region than a reputation for effective work, high productivity and co-operation between work force and management.
Finally, I turn to our decisions on national selective assistance under section 8 of the Industry Act 1972—which can, of course, be paid to enterprises in the assisted areas as well as in the non-assisted areas.
After consideration, the Secretary of State for Energy, the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and I have decided to allow the energy conservation scheme and the two remaining sectoral schemes, for footwear and redmeat slaughterhouses, to run their course. All applications under these schemes and any outstanding applications under the other sectoral schemes that have already closed will be processed under existing criteria.
The selective investment scheme, for major investment projects, closed for applications on 30 June. All outstanding applications which have not yet been approved will be processed against the existing criteria but we shall interpret these criteria somewhat more stringently than in the past, so that marginal projects will in future not be assisted.
For the future, the Government will continue to provide assistance under section 8, but more selectively than hitherto. We shall continue to offer assistance to enable internationally mobile projects to locate in the United Kingdom; this is an area where other Governments are also

very active. We intend also to support projects leading to very substantial improvements in performance, particularly in productivity, or projects which will result in the introduction of new products. In addition, every project will have to demonstrate that it will result in a substantial net contribution to United Kingdom output or will introduce a significant degree of innovation to the United Kingdom. Assistance will be given only for projects that would not go ahead as proposed without it, and will be negotiated as the minimum necessary to achieve this.
I am laying before the House the four orders required to introduce the changes in regional industrial policy, one dealing with regional development grants, one with assisted area boundaries and gradings, and two with industrial development certificates. The regional development grant order requires an affirmative resolution and my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will be announcing shortly the date for a debate next week at the conclusion of which this resolution will be moved.

Mr. John Silkin: Is not the truth of the matter that the whole of this long statement is concerned with only one thing, namely, cutting by £233 million? Is it not also true that this is payment deferred for the cut in the rate of tax and the tax rate threshold adjustment in the Budget, which cost £662 million, and that it will be the dole queues of Britain that will be paying for the relief to the rich?
I ask the Secretary of State some specific questions on downgrading. Incidentally, I like the touch of his referring to his hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Lee) as the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne and not as his hon. Friend. Having looked at the list and seen that Nelson and Colne is no longer an intermediate area, I understand why he said it.
Is it not true that the intermediate areas, to which so much destruction has been done, are the very areas that are vulnerable to importation? For example, footwear and textiles in Yorkshire and Lancashire are at risk. As for Humberside and the fishing industry, perhaps that goes hand in hand with his right hon. Friend's fisheries policy in Europe.
Secondly, is it true that over the past decade the Labour Government's regional


policy created 300,000 new jobs and, it is estimated, cut unemployment by the same amount? What were the estimates of new jobs not being created and of old jobs not being filled that were given to him by his Department as a result of the changes he specified?
Finally, is not the sole effect of this statement and policy to remove from the assisted areas the safeguard they had with the IDCs and to send new factories into the prosperous areas of the South-East?

Sir K. Joseph: The Labour Party, when in government, reduced regional payments and regional subsidies by £280 million at two weeks' notice, equivalent to £300 million at today's prices. The reduction of borrowing and personal taxation which the Government have already set in hand, and for which this change provides part of the resources, is essential if we are to reduce unemployment.
I have not been given any figures about what is referred to as the reduction of jobs due to this package, as there is no evidence whatsoever that in net terms, taking the country as a whole, there is any change in the number of jobs. I grant that there is some displacement of investment as a result of regional incentives. The best figure that I have been able to get is that the average number of jobs transferred from the non-assisted areas to the asissted areas each year in the 1970s was of the order of 10,000 for the country as a whole. There is no figure to give the House about the reduction of jobs as a result of that.

Mr. Cyril Smith: Is the Minister aware that in the North of England his statement will be received with great dismay and that it appears to many of us that it is biased very much towards a part of the South of England and against the North of England? Some of us view that matter with grave concern. Will he tell us what his statement does for the encouragement of small businesses and small industries, which we have understood was one of the major planks of Government policy? Will he say what the reaction of the CBI is likely to be to this statement—or is he as unconcerned about its attitude as was the Prime Minister in her earlier statements at the Dispatch Box at Question Time this afternoon?

Sir K. Joseph: The present map is full of anomalies. There are many parts of the country receiving assistance from regional development money which have lower unemployment and better economic structures than many other areas that have not been receiving such assistance. It was about time that the Government altered the map to achieve more sensible relationships.
Secondly, small businesses are helped by the general economic and tax climate. My right hon. and learned Friend's Budget has been, and will be, a help to them. Thirdly, the CBI is naturally, as are all members of the Government and of the House, extremely concerned about cash flows in business and industry. We are intensely concerned about that matter. However, the House will recognise that the changes we propose are covered by a transitional period and do not come into effect for three years. It is not the regional policies on which the cash flow of industry mainly depends.

Sir William Elliott: Does my right hon. Friend accept that many of us appreciate that the overspread of available aid has not led to lower unemployment or greater national production? Will he accept from me my appreciation of his realisation that the special development areas, including the North-East of England, are in need of extra aid? Does he recognise that in the North-East of England there is a great shortage of skill and that there is a need for extra training facilities and for more co-operation between the trade unions, employers and the education system? Does he recognise that the North-East of England wishes to play its full part in that national economic recovery for which he so bravely strives?

Sir K. Joseph: I am grateful to my hon. Friend.
I hope the House will appreciate that the more widely spread is the assistance from the taxpayer, the less effective is the help to those areas that are in most need. The purpose of this policy is, precisely as my hon. Friend understands, to focus and concentrate the help from the taxpayer on those parts of the country that are in most need.

Mr. Molyneaux: In his opening words the Secretary of State referred to Great


Britain. May we therefore assume that there will be an early statement by the Secretary of State for Northern Ierland? May I assure the Secretary of State that he will have our support in steps and measures to ensure that incentives lead to the best possible long-term results?

Sir K. Joseph: My right hon. Friend must answer that question for himself. There is no immediate statement in mind.

Mr. Kenneth Baker: Will my right hon. Friend clarify the matters concerning IDCs? Am I right in thinking that in the non-assisted areas it will be possible to have industrial development up to 50,000 sq. ft. without an industrial development certificate? If so, is he aware that many Labour and Conservative Members of Parliament representing London constituencies have been pressing for that for a long time? Is he also aware that the right hon. Member for Deptford (Mr. Silkin), who speaks for the Opposition on these matters, would have had a much more prosperous constituency if that had been done many years ago?

Sir K. Joseph: The answer is " Yes " to both parts of my hon. Friend's question.

Dr. McDonald: Will the right hon. Gentleman, who is now known as the cut-and-run man, tell us what he will do about the regional development boards, which give special assistance to medium-size, regionally based companies? Will he also explain why he has raised the minimum qualifying levels of assistance for plant and machinery in the regions? Will he say whether he is prepared to add to his criteria for future selective assistance the criterion of public accountability? Will he explain why the bias of regional aid will go towards big business and not small and medium business? Is that because he is afraid of facing big business as he is of facing the House?

Sir K. Joseph: I want to help the hon. Lady, but I do not recognise the expression " regional development boards ". Perhaps the hon. Lady will explain to me later what it is she wants me to answer, and I shall try to do that.
On the question of bias, I hope that the House will not misunderstand the raising of the threshold. To convert the

£100 and £1,000, which are the threshold levels for plant and buildings, respectively, to current money levels, they would need to become £300 and £3,000 respectively. We raised them to £500 and £5,000 to allow some leeway. They are not prejudiced against small businesses. Large and medium as well as small businesses buy small items of plant and authorise small buildings.

Mr. Lee: I thank my right hon. Friend for his answers to my questions. Does he agree that the Opposition seem totally obsessed with the belief that investment comes only from the public sector? Would he like to comment on the information that I obtained from the Stock Exchange today, namely, that since the Government came to power on 3 May no less than £420 million has been raised by public companies on the Stock Exchange for investment purposes by way of rights issues?

Sir K. Joseph: My hon. Friend is abundantly right. Investment and expansion respond to the economic climate and not just to subsidies.

Mr. Dormand: Does the Secretary of State not recognise that everything he has said this afternoon—and, indeed, the bungling in failing to provide essential background information—will be regarded in the Northern region as so much camouflage to hide his doctrinaire theories about the non-interventionist society? Is he not aware of the immense success of the Labour Government's regional policy? Is he not also aware that what he has said today will lead only to a most serious deterioration in the area?

Sir K. Joseph: I do not think that the inhabitants of the special development areas would regard Labour's regional policy as a great success. The taxpayer will still be finding very large sums of money for regional policy.

Mr. Emery: Does my right hon. Friend realise that most people who understand this problem will believe that the cost-effectiveness of Government money in creating new jobs is of the greatest importance? Does he appreciate that many areas, such as my own constituency, where there is 10 per cent. unemployment, have had no aid at all, and that the statement will be seen as being much fairer to the whole of the country? Will


he make a statement—or have a Minister in his Department make a statement—about the ability to create new jobs in the areas so affected, by encouraging small industries and small businesses, and to stop certain of the present restrictions in labour legislation which discourage small businesses from taking on new employees?

Sir K. Joseph: It is our object to encourage the creation and expansion of existing business in every way that we can, including the removal of constraints.

Mr. Maclennan: If the Secretary of State proposes to look more favourably on internationally mobile industry, as he indicated, how will he avoid discriminating against domestic industry in the same field? Will he say why he has decided upon such an arbitrary reduction, from 40 per cent. to 25 per cent., in the assisted areas in three years' time? The sparsely populated parts of the country, which are large in area, might be very adversely affected by that decision.

Sir K. Joseph: It is an unavoidable fact that any help to a company, be it international or domestic, may be a prejudice to a home competitor. That is unavoidable in regional policy.
We did not choose a magic figure as a percentage of the population to which to reduce the proportion covered by regional incentives. We looked at a fair division between those areas which have structural economic difficulties, including unemployment, and those which are in a different order of difficulty, with much less difficult problems.
It is true—we recognise it—that there are some sparsely populated areas of the country where there are relatively large but absolutely small pockets of unemployment, and we have taken these into account.

Mr. Sproat: Does my right hon. Friend realise that while we shall want to study closely the details of the changes proposed this afternoon, we very much welcome the fact, first, that Scotland will now get a higher percentage of the development areas than it had under the Labour Government, secondly, that more help is to be given to the worst-hit areas in the West of Scotland, and, thirdly, that industry in Scotland will have time

to adjust on this occasion, which it did not have under the last Government?

Sir K. Joseph: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for all three points.

Mr. Rowlands: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us what advice he took and whom he consulted before embarking on the process of downgrading? For example, did he consult the Secretary of State for Wales before the special development area of Merthyr Tydfil was downgraded? Did he find out that the Hoover company in Merthyr, which employs a third of my working population, is in serious economic difficulties, and that already hundreds of job losses have to be faced, in addition to the fact that the company has had to postpone an extension upon which the whole of Ebbw Vale and the Heads of the Valleys area were depending for new jobs? Does he realise that he has now dashed all the hopes not merely of Merthyr but of the whole of the Heads of the Valleys by downgrading the area? What advice did he get on this issue from the Secretary of State for Wales?

Sir K. Joseph: What I have announced today is Government policy. I shall be glad to take up individual points when we come to the debate or, through my colleagues or myself, in discussions with individual Members.

Mr. Grylls: Will my right hon. Friend look at the machinery to enable smaller firms to take advantage of a regional development grant? Will he also look at the service industries, which will be bringing many of the new jobs of the future? Can those industries be given more help than in the past?

Sir K. Joseph: My answer is " Yes " to the first part of the question, and not so readily " Yes " to the second part of the question.

Mr. Mulley: Will the Secretary of State give an assurance that none of his proposals announced today, or those in the interim period, will have retrospective effect, so that people can go on with the projects already in hand? Secondly, will he, in the review, take account of the local enterprise that he commended to the House this afternoon? The city of Sheffield has attracted industry by its own efforts. Now the special status, on


which its success has been based, is to be taken away from it.

Sir K. Joseph: I do not want to be inaccurate in any way. I refer the right hon. Gentleman to the written answer, which contains all the transitional arrangements. I want to be very careful in answering about dates. This information, again, is contained in the written answer. I cannot accept that the city of Sheffield has had successes only as a result of regional policy. The country as a whole has had patchy successes, and they do not relate to the impact of regional policy.

Mr. Kilfedder: In view of the fact that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland will faithfully pursue the policy laid down by the right hon. Gentleman, will the right hon. Gentleman give me an absolute assurance that there will be no reduction whatever in the financial assistance to Northern Ireland and the inducements offered to industrialists to provide employment there?

Sir K. Joseph: My hon. Friend must put that question to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. My hon. Friend must not draw conclusions for Northern Ireland from the statement that I have made today about Great Britain.

Mr. Heffer: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that despite the fact that Merseyside, in the main, has been retained as a special development area, this is a very black day for the British people? Does he accept that regional policy is virtually at an end because of the IDC policy? Is it not clear that areas such as Merseyside, with their high levels of unemployment, will be very seriously affected—despite the fact that the right hon. Gentleman says that Merseyside will be helped—precisely by this policy? Does he accept that the policy needs to be changed, even at this late stage? I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to think again about the whole of his regional policy.

Sir K. Joseph: I shall listen to any argument that the hon. Gentleman puts to me.

Mr. Kenneth Carlisle: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many parts of the

country will welcome this news, in particular my constituency, which is surrrounded on three sides by intermediate areas, even though the unemployment in Lincoln is higher than the regional average? The phasing out of these anomalies will make it much easier for many places that have high unemployment to attract new employment.

Sir K. Joseph: I agree with every word that my hon. Friend has said.

Mr. Mark Hughes: Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm, first, that there is a consequential effect of this announcement on the availability of any grants from the regional fund of the European Community, and that whichever area is downgraded as a consequence of this will no longer be eligible, under the knock-on effect, for any grant whatever from the regional fund of the European Community?
Secondly, does the right hon. Gentleman accept that the central corridor of Durham will provide the way in which unemployment, both to the east and to the west, can be solved, and that to downgrade that central corridor does not help to reduce unemployment, either to the east or to the west, within five or six miles?

Sir K. Joseph: During the transitional period of three years, European money will be available to all the present assisted areas. As for what is to happen at the end of that time, there will be plenty of opportunity to discuss the renegotiation of at least part of the European regional fund, which is already imminent, to take into account any arguments that the hon. Gentleman may want to put.

Mr. Peter Mills: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that we in the South-West fully agree that these matters should be looked into, particularly as intermediate areas have not been successful, whereas the full-status areas have? We in the South-West will give my right hon. Friend a fair wind on these proposals, but, if they do not work, will he bear in mind that we are not prepared to see further unemployment develop in the South-West, and will he then change his policy?

Sir K. Joseph: Unemployment does not rise and fall only in relation to regional policy. The House knows that. It responds to the general economic and tax


climate, and to the activities and co-operation of individual British people.

Mr. Faulds: May I remind the right hon. Gentleman of the damage he caused to the National Health Service through a series of earlier inanities? Does he not realise that where older industries are declining and unemployment is therefore rising, as in Smethwick, and where no new industries are coming in, there is greater, not less, need for regional help? Has the right hon. Gentleman any conception of the damage that his ideological commitment will cause?

Sir K. Joseph: Today's statement does not flow from any ideological commitment; it flows from a desire to provide a more cost-effective and less costly regional policy.

Mr. John Townend: I congratulate my right hon. Friend for making a start in doing away with the anomalies. Will he clarify the position in respect of tourist grants recently made available to intermediate areas if they lose that status and are downgraded?

Sir K. Joseph: Tourist grants are not affected.

Mr. Dan Jones: The statement made by the Minister will cause intense disappointment in my constituency of Burnley, not least among members of the right hon. Gentleman's party. In view of the fact that he said that he was prepared to have discussions with anybody, will he accept a delegation from Burnley, consisting of members of the town council, chamber of commerce and trade unions for precisely that discussion?

Sir K. Joseph: One or other of my hon. Friends or noble Friends or I would be glad to see the hon. Member and his constituents, but no effect is expected until 1982.

M.. Maxwell-Hyslop: I thank my right hon. Friend for recognising the anomaly, persistent over so many years, whereby high unemployment in Torbay was completely ignored. Torbay is now given a fair status with other areas of similar unemployment. Will my right hon. Friend get rid of another anomaly, whereby the interpretation of area measurement for the IDC limit is now taken to include car parking space? In areas where local

planning authorities insist that new projects can provide for car parking for their own employees, that space is included in the calculation, which has the effect of negating my right hon. Friend's proposals unless he gets rid of that interpretive anomaly.

Sir K. Joseph: As so often, I am learning from my hon. Friend. I will take up the point that he raised.

Several Hon Members rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. In view of the fact that this matter is to be debated next week and also that we have a very heavy programme later today, I propose to call four more hon. Members from either side.

Mr. Urwin: Does the Minister realise that his answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Dormand) was a lamentable failure because it devalued the importance of regional aid in the Northern region? The result of the last general election bears living testimony to the fact that masses of people in the Northern region fully supported the policies of the outgoing Labour Government. As the Minister's statement is aimed at reducing the global amount of money available for industrial aid to depressed and assisted areas, I suggest that if he wishes to be regarded as a Minister responsible for constructive policies, in that section which is headed " Work of Development Agencies " he should give urgent attention to the importance of setting up a development agency for the Northern region.

Sir K. Joseph: I note the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Trippier: I appreciate that unemployment in my constituency of Rossendale is fairly low, but does not my right hon. Friend feel that it is very dangerous to withdraw intermediate status from that area, which is so heavily dependent upon textiles and footwear?

Sir K. Joseph: I fully understand the point made by my hon. Friend. The Government of the day will watch the changing circumstances and take them into account.

Mr. McWilliam: Bearing in mind that there will be a debate on this subject next week, and also that there is nothing in the statement which tells us of that, will


the right hon. Gentleman tell us the exact criteria upon which he determined those areas that were to be reduced in status or lose status? Is it that the right hon. Gentleman made that decision purely on the basis of a determination to cut public expenditure, regardless of the social cost?

Sir K. Joseph: No, Sir. We made a judgment—it necessarily had to be a judgment—on the relative economic health, employment level and prospects of the various areas of the country.

Mr. Thornton: I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement. Many on Merseyside, if not all Merseyside, will welcome the fact that its status has not been changed. Having determined this policy, will my right hon. Friend look at those outstanding applications for regional development grants in the Merseyside area with a view to expediting their approval?

Sir K. Joseph: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Bagier: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that most of his replies have been based on investment in industry or on profits? Will he turn his mind to thinking about people for a change? Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that the reduction or concentration of the amount of aid will all be cancelled out by relaxation of IDCs? That is one of the most important factors in the right hon. Gentleman's statement. Will he also reply, at this late stage of his questioning, to the question put from my Front Bench? Does he seriously say that he has not done any homework to see how many unemployed will be created by the reduction of £233 million in public expenditure?

Sir K. Joseph: First, very few IDCs have been refused in recent years. Secondly, the money that is saved is not abolished or destroyed; it remains in the economy, in taxpayers' pockets, and will be spent in the creation of jobs.

Mr. Mellor: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his announcement of exemption limits for IDCs in the South-East will be welcome throughout the region, especially in Greater London? Is it not a fact that a malignant and malevolent effect of regional policy over the last 15 years has been the loss of 1 million jobs

in London and the tripling of unemployment in many London boroughs? Does not the restoration of prosperity to London depend on the Government moving out of the area and leaving free enterprise to do its work?

Sir K. Joseph: The reduction of economic vitality in large parts of the Midlands and in London is no help to the North, Scotland or Wales. In fact, we need thriving industry and activity in as many parts of the country as possible if there is to be improvement in the regions.

Mr. John Evans: Is the Secretary of State aware that the policy that he has announced today will damage the social fabric of much of the North of England? Can he give one iota of evidence that firms which did not go to areas such as the North-West with regional assistance will now go there without it? On a specific point, will he look very carefully at the question of grants to areas such as Earlham, which lost a steelworks and has now been downgraded, and tell the House whether it will continue to receive cheap loans from the European Coal and Steel Community? That is an extremely important point.

Sir K. Joseph: Firms did not rush to go to the North-West when there was exactly the present map. The announcement today will do no more and no less harm to the country than the withdrawal of an almost identical amount of money in 1976 by the Labour Government, when, at two weeks' notice, they withdrew regional employment premium.

Mr. Beaumont-Dark: Will my right hon. Friend accept the thanks of the city of Birmingham that at long last the IDC limits have been changed? The relaxation to 50,000 Sq. ft. will enable industry to expand on its own without any further Government money. Will my right hon. Friend welcome with me what Guest, Keen and Nettlefolds has recently done in a development area, where it is going to that area for its own sake and has turned down the use of other people's money to do so? That is the way for this country's industry again to become prosperous—to go to a place because it believes that it is the best place to go to.

Sir K. Joseph: Yes, I repeat that nothing could do more to help the regions


than a reputation in them, and in the country, that there can be found effective work forces co-operating with good management.

Mr. Les Huckfield: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he has made a very complex statement, which does not seem to be understood, particularly by Conservatives and especially among those of his hon. Friends who have complimented him? Is he actually telling the House that he took the many and complex decisions that he did without first getting advice on the number of jobs that might be affected? Secondly, what will he say to that continual procession of Conservative Members of Parliament and representatives of Conservative-controlled local authorities who have been begging and pleading with Department of Industry Ministers to give them assisted area status because they felt that it was so important, in that it offered such a financial incentive? Finally, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the total effect of all that he has announced today can mean nothing less than no hope at all for the regions and a massive drift of industry into the South-East?

Sir K. Joseph: I repeat that the best advice that I have been able to get is that during the 1970s there has been a net increase of 10,000 in jobs in the regions as a whole.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

Mr. Speaker: By leave of the House, I shall put together the 11 questions on the motions relating to statutory instruments.

Ordered,
That the draft North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board (Compensation for Smelter Deficits) (No. 2) Order 1979 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.
That the draft Docks and Harbours (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1979 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.
That the draft Hovercraft (Application of Enactments) (Amendment) Order 1979 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.

That the draft Social Security (Unemployment, Sickness and Invalidity Benefit) Amendment (No. 2) Regulations 1979 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.
That the draft Nursing Qualifications (EEC Recognition) Order 1979 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.
That the draft Lloyd's (General Business) Regulations 1979 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.
That the draft African Development Fund (Further Payments to Capital Stock) Order 1979 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.
That the draft Asian Development Bank (Second Replenishment of the Asian Development Fund) Order 1979 be referred to Standing Committee on Statutory Instrtuments, &amp;c.
That the draft Caribbean Development Bank (Further Payments) Order 1979 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instrutments, &amp;c.
That the draft Inter-American Development Bank (Further Payments) Order 1979 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.
That the draft Weights and Measures (Solid Fuel) (Carriage by Rail) (Amendment) Order 1979 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.—[Mr. St. JohnStevas.]

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That, at this day's sitting, proceedings on the private business set down for consideration at Seven o'clock by direction of the Chairman of Ways and Means shall, instead of being considered at that hour, be considered at the conclusion of the business of Supply, and that the East Kilbride District Council Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, for three hours after it has been entered upon.—[Prime Minister.]

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (SUPPLY)

Ordered,
That, at this day's sitting, notwithstanding anything in Standing Order No. 18 (Business of Supply), the business of Supply may be anticipated by a Motion for the Adjournment of the House; and that Mr. Speaker shall, not later than Ten o'clock, put forthwith any Questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on the Motion in the name of Mr. James Callaghan relating to Reducing public services for those who need them most and on the Motions in the names of Mr. Nigel Lawson and Mr. Robin F. Cook relating to Defence and Civil Estimates, 1979–80 (Outstanding Votes).—[Prime Minister.]

RETIREMENT

4.22 p.m.

Mr. Greville Banner: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide for voluntary retirement for men at the age of sixty; to forbid the forced retirement of men or women before the age of seventy; and for connected purposes.
There is no area of our law that is so devoid of logic or compassion than our rules on retirement. Hundreds of thousands of men are forced to remain at work when they are desperate for a decent and dignified retirement, while a multitude of younger people are desperate for the jobs that are occupied by those older people. Those who are happy to retire are forced to remain at work, others who wish to retire are not allowed to do so, and those who have no wish to retire are forced into unwanted idleness.
Women are permitted to retire when they are 60 and, indeed, often forced to do so when they would prefer to stay at work, while men who are often worn out through manual labour are forced to remain at work when they are so anxious to spend at least a limited time in the retirement to which they are entitled. As the number of people who are needed in employment in this country continues to shrink, as it is certain to do in an age of increased automation, so we are forcing people to remain at work who are only too willing to give up their places at work to those who are anxious to fill them.
This entire system is one that has grown up—a sort of creeping paralysis caused by Governments taking measures that may have been necessary at the time, making limited advances but creating a situation that is totally intolerable and one which, happily, is not matched in many other countries.
The object of the Bill is to remedy these anomalies by two simple steps: first, to provide for an equal voluntary retirement age for men and women, and, secondly, to require that there should be no forced retirement for either men or women before they reach the age of 70.
There is no logic in the present system. I well remember talking to a senior lady who used to be in this House and asking

her how she could possibly justify the extraordinary difference between the way in which men and women are treated, and why in her view women should be allowed to retire at 60 while men must soldier on until they are 65. She replied with that logic for which she was so well known " Ah well, women live longer, don't they." After working that one out, we see that in her own way she had pointed to the ludicrous nature of a system which can only be justified, and which people only attempt to justify, on the ground of cost.
Of course, the cost of providing extra pensions for men aged between 60 and 65 would be great, but against that one must set off three factors. First, these people would be vacating jobs, most of which would be taken up by younger people who are at present on the dole and who in many cases are at present in receipt of supplementary benefit, as well as supporting a family, so that the entire household is being supported by the community when the breadwinner finds no place to work.
Secondly, there is the social cost of unemployment, particularly among the young, which one cannot interpret in terms of finance. There is that hardship, wretchedness and misery about which all of us know when we are in our constituencies and meet people young, middle-aged and in some cases in their late fifties or early sixties. They are people who want to work and who resent being regarded as scroungers by those who do not appreciate that jobs are not there to be found. They are people who are anxious to contribute and who hate idleness. Very often they are men who find themselves at home when their wives are objecting fiercely to their being underfoot. They are young people who come out of school and get into the habit of idleness when they want nothing other than to do a job that they will enjoy and in which they will be content. The financial cost will be far less than anyone has been able to estimate. No one really knows how much it will be, but if one sets the social cost alongside that the two together make these reforms very urgent.
Thirdly, no one is suggesting that a reform of this magnitude can be introduced overnight. All of us who support the Bill—and we come from both sides


of the House—are asking for a commitment to logic and compassion and a commitment in principle to justice and the phasing in of a system that should have been introduced a long time ago. By introducing it in stages there will be some hope for those who are at present caught in this trap of illogical idiocy, which over a period of generations we in this House have created for them.
In a silicon chip revolutionary period in which the number of jobs is likely to sink still further, there will be fewer people employed and more will be seeking the jobs that exist. It is inevitable what will happen. There will be pressure for a shorter working week, for more leisure time and for people to have shorter working lives. There will also be pressure for the precious jobs to be occupied by those who need them most, and for those who do not wish to remain at work, because of their age or health, to be permitted in our decent society to retire when they are still well enough to do so. Those of us who have been involved in this campaign for years make no apologies to the House for continuing the pressure.
Only 18 months ago 1 million people signed a petition to the House asking for these changes. My colleague and friend the former hon. Member for Preston, North, Ron Atkins, and I received thousands of letters asking for the reform proposed in the Bill. People told us how much it would mean to them or how desperate their fathers or brothers were for retirement and how the system was destroying their lives.
We also received a number of letters—not many, but a significant number—from women asking why they should be forced to retire at 60 when they had no wish to do so. They asked why they should not be allowed to continue to contribute to the community when they were still young and why they should not be able to continue to earn the extra money that they desperately needed. Once again, the answer is that we have a system which

is illogical, unfair and totally lacking in compassion.
We have in this area a guide and example from the United States—a rare and happy occurrence. We can learn from what they are doing because there is a law in operation in many parts of the United States that makes it an offence to force people into retirement before they reach the age of 70.
I believe that it is the wish of hon. Members in all parties who are connected with the Bill to ensure as far as we can not merely that those who wish to retire or need to retire are free to do so, but that those who are anxious and willing to remain at work should be entitled to do so.
We ask the House to commit itself not to immediate change but to the principle of justice in retirement practices, the principle of change and the principle of an overhaul of a system which is disastrous in its impact on the lives of hundreds of thousands of ordinary families throughout the country. In those circumstances, and recognising the limitations of presenting a Bill under the Ten Minutes Rule, I ask the House to give leave for the Bill to he introduced.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Greville Janner, Miss Betty Boothroyd, Mr. Stephen Dorrell, Mrs. Sheila Faith, Mr. Austin Mitchell, Miss Jo Richardson, Mr. John Sever, Mr. David Stoddart, Mr. Peter Temple-Morris and Mr. John Wilkinson.

RETIREMENT

Mr. Greville Janner accordingly presented a Bill to provide for voluntary retirement for men at the age of sixty; to forbid the forced retirement of men or women before the age of seventy; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 9 November and to be printed. [Bill 43.]

SHOTTON STEELWORKS

4.33 p.m.

Mr. Barry Jones: I beg to move, That this House do now adjourn.
Leave having been given on Monday 16 July under Standing Order No. 9 to discuss:
 the proposed closure of steel making at the BSC Shotton works ".
I come to praise Shotton, not to bury it. I declare an interest, because for a brief period I laboured underneath the blast furnace of Shotton steelworks. My father worked there for a long time and was a branch official of what is now known as the Iron and Steel Trades Confederation and my grandfather worked at Shotton for many years and had the great honour of having sold the first Daily Herald in Shotton steelworks.
I am glad to see in the Chamber not only the Secretary of State for Industry but the right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath). My mind is taken back to 1973, when I took a deputation to the right hon. Member for Sidcup, when he was Prime Minister, to stress that the proposed closure of Shotton by the then Tory Government was wrong.
I have been comparing and contrasting the treatment that I received then with the treatment that I have received in the past few days. I recollect that in 1972 the right hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Walker) who was Secretary of State for Trade and Industry came to the House and had the courage to tell us what he was about—even though it was to include in his proposals the closure of steelmaking at Shotton.
I was later able to take a large number of my constituents to 10 Downing Street to meet the Prime Minister and to debate the matter with him for one and a half hours. I recollect the right hon. Gentleman's patience, the way that he debated the issue, and how he and his colleagues bent over backwards to try to effect an easement of the situation for my constituents.
The treatment meted out to me and the steel workers over the past few days has been arrogant, offhand, evasive and totally unworthy of a Government. I guess, however, that it is, by now, totally typical of the present Government.
The point at issue is that at least 6,300 jobs are to be lost. The work force of 10,800 reside in one sub-region and, by any estimate, 7,000 or more live in my constituency. That is a large concentration of steel workers. The only skill possessed by the great majority of steel workers is the great skill of making steel. Most of them left school at the age of 14, and for a generation they have been working making skilfully some of the best steel in the world.
Perhaps once a year a steel worker will save from injury, at least, another steel worker. That sort of working comradeship engenders for a whole community a feeling of brotherhood. There is a special feeling in any steel constituency, and that is certainly the case in my constituency. At my constituency Labour Party meetings the women of the meeting will leave at 8.30 p.m. in order to prepare sandwiches for the night workers on the shift that starts at 10 o'clock.
The worker-director at Shotton has four sons working in the steelworks. Perhaps the best way of illustrating the dependence of my area on steelmaking is to describe a frequent occurrence at night when the blast furnace is tapped. In certain climatic conditions, particularly when there is heavy cloud, the whole area for many miles around is suffused in a red glow when the furnace is tapped. A proud community lives in that area where the glow of hot metal is reflected on the skyline, and I believe that that community is at risk because of the Government's actions.
Central to the whole debate are the attitude, posture and policies of the Secretary of State for Industry. If there had not been a class war, I would look to the right hon. Gentleman to invent one. One of the images that I have of the right hon. Gentleman is that of an inventor. I think of him in Victoria Street, poring over his books and potions like some medieval alchemist casting his spells, earnestly seeking the transmutation of economic lead to economic gold and murmuring many times " entrepreneur ". Of course, this sorcerer's apprentice is the Prime Minister.
I am also beginning to see another image of the right hon. Gentleman. That image is of the back-street bruiser. With the Secretary of State for Wales holding


his coat, he is mugging the chairman of the British Steel Corporation. He is pistol-whipping, knuckle-dusting and bother-booting Sir Charles Villiers. That violence is brought about by the necessity, according to the Government, for the break-even policy.
The Corporation has moved against Shotton because the Government have inflicted crude cash limits that are crippling it. If Shotton falls, after it will come Llanwern, Port Talbot and even Ravenscraig. Successively, the right hon. Gentleman's cash limits will bankrupt these plants. The current policy is stupid and deeply injurious to the social fabric of our steel communities. The Government have endorsed a policy that can destroy the British steel industry. It is crippled by imports, smothered by cash limits, supervised with the utmost severity, and it may well wither on the vine. The current policy is a monumental disaster. The only way to get the break-even policy to work is to close steel works over and over again. In that way we shall destroy the remaining steel industry in the United Kingdom.
That brings me to the pledge. The chairman of the British Steel Corporation said that the Shotton steelworks would be required for many years to come. I quote from the speech on 21 May of my right hon. Friend the former Secretary of State for Industry, who was quoting the pledge that was given.
 ' In view of our commercial objectives and of our proposals for the development of Port Talbot on the above basis, we have decided to remove any proposal or date for closure of iron and steel making at Shotton. This decision will not be reviewed during BSC's current five-year plan beginning in 1977. ' "—[Official Report, 21 May 1979; Vol. 967, c. 700.]
In the Corporation's annual report for that year a whole page was given to the pledge on Shotton. That pledge should be reconstituted.
The rundown at Shotton is scheduled to take place over a period of less than two years. My ministerial experience tells me that 9,000 new jobs cannot be delivered to a stricken area in anything like two years, and I fear that those in my area who go on the dole will rot there for the rest of the decade. I urge the Government to think again.
Fortuitously I received from the Secretary of State for Wales a letter on 11

July. Given the speculation that I sensed about the future of Shotton, I had the prudence to ask if he could tell me how many jobs were to come to my constituency—how many were in the pipeline and how many had been made. I got a truthtful answer that there were few. I have written down here " only 800 ". If we are to lose 6,300 jobs directly and perhaps several thousand more indirectly on the domino theory of dependence of main jobs, what sort of society will we have on Deeside in two or three years' time? Will unemployment rise to 20 per cent? Will masses of our young people either have to meddle away their time without a job locally or leave the area to make their fortune elsewhere? What will happen to the dozens upon dozens of local shops and small local jobbing builders? What social fabric will we have in three years' time if the Government insist that the decision go forward? Shotton in the 1980s must not become what Jarrow was in the 1930s.

Mr. David Alton: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will also consider the ripple effect that the closure of Shotton will have on not only Deeside but on Merseyside? It will have a disastrous effect on the Bidston dock. It will cause consequential unemployment problems to the people of Merseyside, who are also suffering at present.

Mr. Jones: If the Shotton rampart falls, the people in unemployment queues in North-West Wales—in Gwynedd—will be doomed to stay there until the year dot. There will be no hope of pushing new jobs to North-West Wales if the main objective is to find 9,000 jobs for Deeside in the decade ahead. A strong civic and political alliance with Merseyside was forged in the Shotton fight. I do not doubt that if the Shotton rampart falls, the Deeside area will become directly competitive with stricken Merseyside for jobs that are in short supply. The Government had better think again. Only half an hour ago they said that they would seek to get a better regional policy of aid for Merseyside.

Mr. Eric S. Heffer: Does my hon. Friend agree that in the fight to maintain Shotton he received tremendous support from Merseyside Labour Members and the Merseyside


Labour movement? All sections of the Labour movement have stood four-square with my hon. Friend in the battle, and we shall do so today, because the issue affects the people of Merseyside whom we represent.

Mr. Jones: The efforts of Labour Members in Merseyside, Liverpool and Greater Merseyside have been little short of heroic. Lord Sefton skilfully organised the civic alliance for us. With the help of Labour Members Shotton has been able to stay in the production ring for over half a decade. I do not doubt that in the months ahead, if the Shotton work force looks in the direction of Merseyside for help in its constitutional struggle against that unjust decision, Merseyside Labour Members will not be found wanting one whit.
I have not come here today to belabour the British Steel Corporation. World trading conditions are manifestly discouraging. OPEC has twice conspired to disrupt forecasts, but the Corporation has progressively modernised its productive capacity, almost exorcised the malicious ghosts of the old steel masters and at times in the 1970s delivered profits. It has had three chairmen in seven years, dealt with five Governments, contended with regional lobbies, recently found a strong pound a disincentive to export activities and suffered from the catastrophic importation of foreign steel through the flood of imported cars. I suspect that if pressed the Corporation would ruefully concede that if only the British car industry had had the same productive spurt since 1964 as the French, demand for sheet steel would have been 1 million tons higher today and the Shotton steelworks would have been going great guns.
Mine is in no way an attack on a nationalised industry. However, if I am permitted the ghost of an attack, may I direct it towards the Government Front Bench? The Secretary of State has played a most unsatisfactory part in all this. It is a long time since we have seen such a political image walking the Welsh stage. It has been a portrayal of feeble action, divided loyalties and pusillanimous policies. I rate the Secretary of State as unloved, unwanted and ineffectual. He is a survivor of Globtik,

yet he is the proponent in our lovely land of the ugliest features of the market economy. The history of working people throughout Wales has been one of struggle and adversity, but the right hon. Gentleman weighs very heavily on our shoulders. In the name of God, he should go and free us of his baleful influences. The Secretary of State for Wales has not in any way defended the interests of the North Welsh people. He has surrendered the entitlement to work of thousands of my constituents and he has rendered the area hopelessly and pitifully vulnerable.

Mr. James Tinn: My hon. Friend has been more than generous in his references to the British Steel Corporation. Will he go a little further and recognise the dilemma of the Corporation and the industry? It has carried through a development programme which many of us said at the time was inadequate. But now the Corporation faces a catastrophic fall in world demand for steel which means that it must decide whether to put its modern plants in mothballs or to under-utilise them at high cost in order to maintain the older conventional plants which make our industry internationally uncompetitive.

Mr. Jones: My hon. Friend has said it all better than I could say it. There speaks a friend of a great nationalised industry.
I complain to the Secretary of State for Industry about the shabby way in which we learnt of the Shotton decision. First, the steel workers were told that the chairman himself would tell them of their fate. There was no statement from Industry Ministers to the House, and certainly no letter was sent to me on that day to warn me of the impending statement by the BSC. The national joint planning committee last month was not told of any proposals for Shotton, even though that is a very high-powered employer-trade union committee. The TUC's national steel committee was given a statement by the BSC last Thursday—the very day of the decision—when it went to meet the Corporation. Therefore, it is true that there were no consultations at all. What has occurred has been a unilateral act against the spirit of understanding with the trade unions.

Sir Anthony Meyer: Who, in the hon. Member's opinion, should have had the first information about the decision? Should it have been the workers of Shotton, the national trade unions or this House?

Mr. Jones: I look forward to hearing the answer to that question from the Minister.
Trade unionists in my area believe that they have been bounced very cynically. They are very angry. On 12 July I received a letter from the Secretary of State for Industry. That letter was dated 10 July and it contained some details about Shotton steelmaking, but there was not a ghost of a mention about the imminent closure proposals. The Department of Industry has not played fair with the House or with the workers at Shotton.
I raise briefly a question about the plans to transport 1½ million tonnes of sheet steel from Scotland to Shotton when the steelmaking capacity at Shotton ceases. Can the Scottish plant at RavensCraig produce that amount of steel regularly for Shotton? The trade unionists have been given no sight of any figures about the cost of transporting that amount of sheet steel across Britain. They want to know who will pay for the new rolling stock that will be used to transport this sheet steel.

Dr. Jeremy Bray: My constituents in Motherwell who work at Ravenscraig will support my hon. Friend and his constituents in flatly opposing the closure of Shotton in the absence of any alternative employment. The capacity of Ravenscraig to produce is now being proved by the workers there. However, this is a part of the wider strategy in the tragedy of having failed to provide alternative employment in the steel areas. The Minister will find that all the steel workers are united against precipitate closures which maker it impossible to have alternative plans rolling in advance.

Mr. Jones: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments. I shall study Hansard closely, and show his remarks to my constituents.
A large amount of sheet steel is to be produced in Scotland and transported to Shotton. It is said at Shotton that

large-scale expenditure will be required to erect buildings to store such amounts of sheet metal. It is even said that the cost of storage will exceed the amount of money that would be needed for new investment to make the furnaces more modern and to prevent Shotton from closing.
The central point about the transportation of sheet steel over many hundreds of miles to Shotton is how regularly can this be delivered. Can it be delivered day in, day out, year in, year out? Can there be guarantees against industrial disputes in a steelworks, or on the British Rail system? If these guarantees cannot be given, this renders very vulnerable the 4,000 jobs at the finishing complex at Shotton. It is here that Government Ministers have been taken for a ride. They have not done their homework and they will find it extremely difficult to guarantee regular supplies to enable those 4,000 jobs to remain safe. It is widely believed in the constituency that it will be only a matter of time before those jobs are rubbed out.
I accuse the Secretary of State for Wales of dereliction of duty. I urge the reconstitution of the pledge given by the chairman of the Corporation. I believe that the Secretary of State should leave his office. I propose that the modest investment at Shotton which is needed to enable steelmaking to continue should be given. Shotton's role in the United Kingdom steel policy should be as a balancing plant, giving insurance cover against over-dependence upon too few, too vulnerable giant steelworks operating in Britain.
I give notice to the Government that the Shotton steelmen will oppose, oppose and oppose these offensive Government policies. They will fight, organise and lobby and they will do these things honourably, ably, persistently and constitutionally.
I believe that the free market policies will run for another 18 months only. I predict that the Secretaries of State for Defence, Employment, the Home Department, Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs will seek an audience with the Prime Minister and they will say " Either you go or the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph) goes ". I believe that the Prime Minister will dump her


Industry Minister. But will Shotton survive until then? If the pledge of the chairman of BSC is reconstituted it might survive.
Shotton desperately needs time to stay in production and to retain its steel-making capacity. The Tory Government are switching off the life-support system of my constituency. They are doing so directly because of their naive, simplistic and pathetic adherence to the ideological economic policies of the Secretary of State for Industry. I warn the House that Shotton is but the first victim of these foolish and wrongful policies. Steelworks, shipyards, aerospace factories, motor car and motor cycle factories had better beware.
Working people in Britain should know that they are being sought out for punishment by an ideologically crazed Government. Their punishment will be the dole. The Government believe in massive dole queues as an instrument of policy.

5.1 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Industry (Sir Keith Joseph): I thought that it would help the House if I spoke briefly at this stage. My hon. Friend the Minister of State will hope to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, at the end of the debate.
My right hon. and hon. Friends understand entirely the sense of shock that must have been felt in Shotton at the decision of the British Steel Corporation. The people of Shotton have built up an excellent reputation as a work force over many years and I pay my respectful tribute to them. The House will be aware that when the Labour Government nationalised steel in the late 1960s they gave the management responsibility to the Corporation. Therefore, I have no power—and I do not suggest that if I had the power I would necessarily use it on this occasion, for reasons that I shall explain—under a Labour statute to veto a closure that is decided upon by the Corporation.
The hon. Member for Flint, East (Mr. Jones) made a speech that does credit to his heart, but it does not do much credit to the understanding—

Mr. Heffer: The right hon. Gentleman is misleading the House. He knows that he does not have the actual power,

but any Secretary of State has a great deal of influence and power, and he can bring in the chairman of BSC to discuss the matter with him. If the Cabinet wished, it could take a decision on the matter.

Mr. Robert Kilroy-Silk: It should sack the chairman.

Mr. Heffer: My hon. Friend is right. The Cabinet could take action against the chairman if he did not carry out its views. In 1974 the Labour Government took the decision to delay closures while the position was examined. The right hon. Gentleman knows that Governments can take such action if they have the desire to do so.

Sir K. Joseph: The hon. Gentleman confirms that I have no statutory power in the matter. It is true that Ministers can use influence, and the hon. Gentleman has made a point for me that I was to reach later in my speech. A Labour Minister called in the chairman of BSC in 1974 and imposed by influence and not by statutory power a delay in the decision about the Beswick plants.
The hon. Member for Flint, East made something of the promise by the chairman of the Corporation, a promise that was quoted by my Labour predecessor. That was a promise that Shotton would continue steel making at the heavy end for a period of five years. There is a precedent for such a promise in the promises that accompanied the delays in the closure of the Beswick plants. Those promises came about because of the influence of Labour Ministers, as the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) has reminded the House. What happened to those promises? No doubt, every one was given with good intentions but every one was broken. Promises were made about Clyde Iron, Glengarnock, East Moors, Hartlepool and Shelton steelworks.
It may seem kind to delay closures, but when events, factors and market situations changed, even under the Labour Government the Corporation was allowed to go ahead and close those plants before the promised date. The promise given in connection with Shotton was part of a total programme including the rebuilding of Port Talbot. When the world market fell away, and that programme with it,


the context changed. It is not for me to defend the chairman of the Corporation—he can defend himself. The hon. Member for Walton is underestimating events if he does not recognise the change in context of the circumstances that accompanied the pledge. However, there was a pledge, and the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Varley) has repeated that pledge in the House. The statement by the chairman of the British Steel Corporation acknowledged, in initiating the closure arrangements, that a pledge had been made.

Dr. Bray: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the present action of BSC and a number of further actions that are likely to follow in the next few months are made inevitable by the financial target that he has statutorily set of reaching break even by March 1980? Most people in the Corporation believe that target to be totally unachievable, yet the attempt to achieve it will force all sorts of ill-considered actions upon the Corporation.

Sir K. Joseph: There was no break-even pledge to justify the closures of Clyde Iron, Glengarnock, East Moors, Hartlepool or Shelton, yet each one was closed before the date that was promised by the then chairman of the Corporation and the Minister in the previous Labour Government.

Mr. Eric G. Varley: The right hon. Gentleman should get his facts right. He has been badly briefed on the matter. With regard to the steelworks to which he referred, there were negotiated closures on the basis of full consultation with the TUC steel committee and the local work force. That is the difference. The closures were not imposed in the way that we are now being told the closure of Shotton is being imposed. The right hon. Gentleman should not pick up pieces of paper from his Department without knowing the full facts of the case.

Sir K. Joseph: The practice that occurred in connection with those closures is being embarked upon now by the present chairman. The Government have not made a decision about Shotton, but the chairman has started from similar consultations with the aim of forcing such closure as occurred in the episodes to which the right hon. Gentleman referred.
I am happy to accept responsibility where I have it. However, when I am told that it is only the break-even requirement that I have imposed upon the Corporation that is causing the present activity, I remind the House that the right hon. Member for Chesterfield said in May 1978:
 The BSC must get its finances straight as quickly as is practicable. My hon. Friend will know that in the last financial year BSC, in common with many comparable steel companies overseas, lost money. It lost £440 million. Part of the Government's policy is that the financial objectives of the BSC should be to break even by the financial year 1979–80."—[Official Report, 22 May 1978; Vol. 950, c. 1105.]
The requirement that I am imposing is a little later than that imposed by the right hon. Gentleman. He imposed a break-even task for the year 1979–80. I am imposing it for the end of the year 1979–80. There is no change in that break-even requirement. I think that there is now more chance that it will be achieved, but the House must realise that, even if it is, it is only a break even on revenue account.
I have said that I am not prepared to ask the British taxpayer to finance losses from the end of this financial year. I have said to the House and the Corporation that we shall be asking the taxpayer to provide money towards the capital expenditure of the Corporation next year.

Dr. Bray: The right hon. Gentleman made the crucial point that, whereas the previous target adopted by the Corporation and supported by the Secretary of State was a legitimate target, he has backed that target by a flat refusal to finance deficits after March 1980. It is that damaging situation that has put the Corporation's chairman in an impossible position. What is the chairman to do in March 1980?

Sir K. Joseph: The hon. Gentleman is splitting hairs. The right hon. Member for Chesterfield spoke of the Government's objective, not the Corporation's objective. He said that the Corporation should break even by the financial year 1979–80, which were my own words precisely. Is the hon. Gentleman saying that his right hon. Friend did not mean what he said?

Mr. Varley: There is a great deal of difference between stating an objective


as something that one should aim for and imposing a straitjacket. The right hon. Gentleman should address his comments to the pledge on Shotton given by the chairman of the BSC. It was said that the decision would not be reviewed by the Corporation during the current five-year plan. The right hon. Gentleman is now saying that he thinks that the Corporation should break that pledge. That is what we are complaining about.

Sir K. Joseph: As I have said, the pledge was made. The Corporation's chairman acknowledged that fact and included it in his announcement about his intention to start discussions about closure. The present Government had no association with that pledge. Indeed, the then Conservative Opposition, at the time when the Secretary of State for Industry announced the pledge, dissociated themselves from it. There was a pledge between the Corporation and the Shotton work force in respect of discussions on closure.
The speech made by the hon. Member for Flint, East did not sketch in the background. The steel industry, which is an important industry in terms of the welfare and prosperity of our country, has received from the taxpayer a sum of £3,000 million in the last few years in order to modernise itself. Everybody in the House welcomed the intention to modernise. The logic of modernisation is that when there is excess capacity it is not the modernised plant that is taken out. The hon. Member for Redcar (Mr. Tinn) made the point effectively in an intervention. What is the BSC to do when there is world over-capacity? Does it expect the taxpayer to pay endlessly?

Mr. Dennis Skinner: What is the taxpayer expected to do in that situation? I can only draw from experience in the coal industry, because many of the comments made by the right hon. Gentleman were applied to that industry. It was said that the coal could not be sold, that the industry was operating with ancient machinery, that production in many areas was low, that some pits should be closed and that the non-economic end should be cut. The things that are now being said about the steel industry were applied to the coal industry in the mid-1950s and throughout the

1960s until about 1968. Some of us said in those days that the production of coal was not the same as the production of vegetables and that coal would not rot in people's back yards. We said that coal was a product that we were capable of producing and that before long the oil industry, with its powerful lobby, would take over in such a way that it would be able to demand prices that could not be sustained. That argument has been proved without doubt. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to judge by experience. If he needs to err, he should err on the side of caution. Experience in the coal industry makes that clear to all of us.

Sir K. Joseph: On that argument the British taxpayer would be asked to pay for surplus capacity in every one of our basic industries, even beyond the amount of money that is already paid to a number of them. I believe that the British taxpayer already feels overtaxed.
I am not competent or qualified to answer the detailed technical questions put to me about Ravenscraig. They are matters for the management of the Corporation. Ministers do not manage British Steel. There is a management designed for that purpose. However, I must put the larger issues before the House.
There are two points that I wish to make, and I ask the House to take them seriously. First, if British Steel does not become competitive, the steel industry will lose more and more of its domestic customers and will enter a loss-making spiral, with ever-increasing demands on broadly unsympathetic taxpayers. It is essential, in the interests of the jobs of the majority of those who work for British Steel, that the Corporation should become competitive in price, quality and delivery as soon as practicable. It may seem kind to preserve surplus capacity, but it is not kind to the vast majority of people who work for British Steel because, unless it is competitive, even more jobs will be in danger.
All is not as bad as the hon. Member for Flint, East sought to convey. The work force at Shotton has an excellent reputation. That force will be inherently attractive to employers seeking to locate business activities. The Government have power to take a limited range of useful actions. My right hon. Friend the


if such happenings were due to some cos-Secretary of State for Wales, who has been in the Chamber since the hon. Member for Flint, East began his speech, has already spoken in the House of some of the actions that would be open to the Government in considering the regional grading of the area of Shotton and in encouraging and facilitating factory building. The reputation of the workers is their best hope.
Self-help is one of the best forms of help, but in what we hope will be the more active industrial vitality in the months and years ahead many employers should be looking for work forces with high reputations with which to embark on new activities. Therefore, the hon. Gentleman will do a disservice to his constituents if he spreads too much gloom in the area of Shotton. However, I fully accept the sense of shock which the initiative of the Corporation may have caused in the area. I repeat that the excellent reputation of the workers concerned will stand them in best stead.

Mr. Robert Parry: The right hon. Gentleman says today in a written answer on industrial policy that Rhyl will be upgraded from intermediate status to development area status and that Wrexham is to be upgraded from development area status to special development area status. Is he not adopting double standards, and does he not appreciate that as the result of his proposals unemployment in North Wales and on Merseyside will be devastating?

Sir K. Joseph: The discussions about closure have only just been initiated. We have said that if closure occurs we shall consider upgrading the area concerned. That remains our position.

5.20 p.m.

Mr. Bill Homewood: I am hardly likely, after my short time here, to match the eloquence of my hon. Friend the Member for Flint, East (Mr. Jones). Nor have I the temerity to suggest that the Secretary of State for Industry should be dismissed. After all, he might be able to claim unfair dismissal because of the short space of time that he has occupied the post.
I have listened a number of times to Government spokesmen disclaiming re-

sponsibility for industrial occurrences as mic control. It must be the extrapolation of the metaphysical with which the Leader of the House controls the business. No Government can disclaim responsibility for the threat to the Corby iron and steel works. Corby was not created by the free play of market forces under the aegis of Adam Smith's influence. I understand that the Secretary of State is a great admirer of that revered economic anarchist. I assure him that the ideas of the classic economists had little connection with the birth or growth of Corby.
In the early 1930s the iron and steel works, and most of the houses and amenities in the town were developed by the use of cheap Government loans, even in those days. What would £7 million be worth today? That led to a population increase from 1,000 in 1932 to 17,000 by the late 1940s, but such growth was not rapid enough to service either the national need for the product or the profit desire of the owners. In 1951 the Government intervened again to accord the area new town status.
I hear murmurs around me that Corby is not Shotton, but anyone who thinks that the two cases are separate in anything but their historical antecedents is not living in the same age as myself. Corby was created a new town with a difference, in that all the people induced to move to the place, and all its bricks and mortar, were designed to serve one purpose only—the continuance and the development of the iron, steel and tube works in the town.
Neither the Government nor the Opposition in this House can say that they have no responsibility for the tragedy that is now being mooted in the suggestion that the iron and steel works should be closed. Lord Keynes said that, in the long run, we are all dead. If, in the short term, the iron and steel works are closed, that can only be described as the rape of a town—in this case, incestuous rape in that the town is the child of the iron and steel industry and of Government.
The population of the town is now 52,000. It has an unemployment level that fluctuates between 7 per cent. and 9 per cent. depending upon the time of year when statistics are taken.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill): Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but he must relate his remarks to Shotton. I believe that he is talking about another steel mill.

Mr. Homewood: I fear, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I am in some difficulty over your remarks.

Mr. Eric Ogden: My hon. Friend should say Corby, like Shotton.

Mr. Homewood: I am advised that I should say Corby, with Shotton in brackets. I am sure that the situation in Corby is parallel to that in Shotton. The figures are almost identical. My hon. Friend the Member for Flint, East talked of the loss of 7,000 jobs. In Corby, the British Steel Corporation has supplied a definitive number of 5,500 within the iron and steel works. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Flint, East is also taking into consideration the multiplier in a one-industry town. This means a spinoff to the extent of 1,500 jobs, bringing the total to 7,000. Such a figure would mean, at its very least, an unemployment level of 25 per cent., and at its worst—most of us believe that it would be the worst—of 35 per cent.
I am sure that my hon. Friend's constituency has suffered, as Corby has, from being a one-industry community. Employers have been inhibited from moving into the area because of the higher level of earnings, owing to shift work and unlimited overtime, that steel workers enjoyed until a few years ago. Other industries were not competitive. In Corby as, I am sure, at Shotton, innumerable efforts, persistent and consistent, to attract new industry to the area have failed.
I do not know the statistics for Shotton, but in Corby, from 1967, when the vulnerability of the area was appreciated, probably for the first time, when the boom of the 1950s and the 1960s was dying away, and when people became aware of their circumstances, great efforts were made to diversify the industrial structure. Yet, 10 years later, we have finished up with fewer people in non-steel manufacturing trades than when we started.
I do not know what the situation is like in Shotton, but in Corby it is bad—

very bad. There are many poor people. The number of children who receive free school meals is double the average for the rest of Northamptonshire. The infant mortality rate in 1976 was 50 per cent. higher than the average for England and Wales. As a result of the imbalance in the social structure created by there being only one industry in the area, educational attainment is lower than perhaps anywhere else in the country.
From what my hon. Friend the Member for Flint, East said, it seems that the people of Shotton have not gone into the economic case as closely as we have in Corby. The British Steel Corporation says that the closure of the Corby works would result in a £40 million cash saving for that Corporation. That figure is not dissimilar to the figure cited by my hon. Friend the Member for Flint, East.
The Corby figures have been examined by academics. They have discovered that they represent a gross overestimate of the savings involved. I am as suspicious of academics as I am of industrialists and politicians.

Mr. Ogden: I hope that my hon. Friend excludes from that suspicion his hon. Friends who are in the Chamber.

Mr. Homewood: At the moment I exclude only myself.
The academics say that the BSC has got its figures wrong to the extent of £34 million a year. The academics say that the saving will be £6 million against the BSC's estimate of £40 million.
Because of my suspicions of both sets of functionaries it is safer to drive straight down the middle. It seems that we are talking of a £20 million a year saving in economic activity. Of course, that sum does not include the social costs, any more than does the saving that applies to Shotton.
If I had been elected, as the Government have, on a platform of cutting public expenditure, I should examine carefully the BSC figures. I do not wish to advise the Government to their benefit, but I want to look after my constituents and those of my hon. Friend the Member for Flint, East. When the Government examine the figures they will find that the closure of the steelworks at Shotton and Corby will add to the public sector borrowing requirement.
I do not believe that the Government are at one with the BSC. The Government believe that if they tell the BSC that they are no longer prepared to subsidise its immense financial loss, a priori they will save money. That is not necessarily a consequence of such action. It is possible that a reduction in subsidies to the smaller steelworks will lead to the Government having to take on board a social commitment that will outweigh the gain for the BSC. That is not good economic management.

Mr. Marcus Kimball: The hon. Member has made a great study of the figures. What percentage of the 5,000 men in Corby will want another job after they have drawn their redundancy pay? There are many long-serving men in the area. The hon. Member is not being fair to the House. He is trying to make a comparison with the situation in Wales. When I drive through Corby, I see a lot of new industry on the Rockingham Road estate.

Mr. Ogden: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. This debate is supposed not to be about the British Steel Corporation and associated problems but about Shotton. Many hon. Members who live in that area want to take part in the debate, so the question put by the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Kimball) should be ruled out of order.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: A total of 21 hon. Members are seeking to take part in the debate. Brief contributions would be helpful.

Mr. Homewood: I shall conclude my remarks quickly. The Corby plant is based upon indigenous iron ore. It uses domestic coal. The strip that is to replace it will be based on imported iron ore and 55 per cent. of the coal will have to be imported. In view of the balance of payments and the energy crisis, that is not good economic management.
I could have answered the question put to me by the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Kimball). It was not burdonsome. Whatever he believes will happen, we are heading for confrontation with the trade unions if the Government try to close the works.

5.38 p.m.

Sir Anthony Meyer: I congratulate the hon. Member for Flint,

East (Mr. Jones) on initiating today's debate. I am glad to be able to take part in it. I have no doubt that my hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester (Mr. Morrison) would have taken part were he not condemned by his office to monastic silence.
I support the case put by the hon. Member for Flint, East, although I deplore the personal tone of some of his remarks. If I do not support him in all his arguments, he will pleased to know that I shall support him with my vote.

Mr. Kilroy-Silk: Will the hon. Member give way?

Sir A. Meyer: We must get on with the debate. I shall not give way. I am sure that the hon. Member for Flint, East will acknowledge the support that I have given him throughout his fight to maintain steel making at Shotton. I believe that the closure of Shotton steel making is a tragic mistake for the workers there and a dreadful mistake for Britain.
I believe that nationalisation has been disastrous for Shotton. If it had stayed in private hands the Summers family would long ago have re-equipped and diversified it and would have foreseen the kind of situation in which it finds itself today.
At this stage it serves no useful purpose to make party political points out of a tragedy. The Conservative Government are allowing the British Steel Corporation to close down Shotton steel making, a move that it has been itching to make for seven years. Can anyone really doubt, however, that the previous Government were on the point of allowing it to do so?
During the general election campaign I asserted—it was only a hunch—that permission for the BSC to close down steel making at Shotton was sitting on the Minister's desk. It was significant that at no point during the general election campaign was that assertion challenged. It passes belief for the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Varley) to claim that he did not know of my challenge. Was he not in communication with the hon. Member for Flint, East, who must read the newspapers in which my challenge was being published? If we are treating this issue as a whodunnit and looking for a guilty party, there, surely,


was the dog that did not bark in the night.

Dr. John Cunningham: The hon. Member is being somewhat less than fair to my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Varley). The hon. Member should recall, since it was in his speech to the House on 21 May this year—it is at column 700 of Hansard—that my right hon. Friend gave the hon. Member the very denial that he now says was never given.

Sir A. Meyer: I recall that very well indeed, and I recall that the denial was made after the election, when there was no possibility of the Labour Party having to make good that denial. That is the whole point of my remarks.
While both Governments have been playing the game of pass the buck, the British Steel Corporation has consistently planned to sacrifice small works such as Shotton, however efficient they might be, to its ever-receding ideal of a large-scale internationally competitive British steel industry based on five major integrated producers. That strategy makes no room for medium-size producers like Shotton, even though Shotton is as near deep water as are Llanwem, Scunthorpe and Ravenscraig.
No account is taken in this strategy of Shotton's uniquely fine record of labour relations. There has been no major strike at Shotton, except those forced upon it by nationwide industrial action, for the past 50 years. Size was everything. The Japanese mirage beckoned invitingly over the horizon.

Mr. Kilroy-Silk: Does the hon. Member recall that some four hours ago he was to be heard on the radio strenuously supporting the intentions of the Secretary of State for Industry to remove development area and intermediate area status from, among others, my constituents? He was saying that strong measures of this kind were needed to teach the country a lesson. Is Shotton somehow different for the hon. Member? Does he apply one standard for Shotton and another for the rest of the country, or is the hon. Member just another typical Tory hypocrite?

Sir A. Meyer: The hon. Member must be responsible for his own remarks. He

must not put remarks into my mouth. I said nothing about teaching the country a lesson—

Mr. Kilroy-Silk: The hon. Member did.

Sir A. Meyer: I certainly did not. I said that I welcomed my right hon. Friend's proposals because I thought they would bring more effective help to the areas that needed it most. I adhere to that view, and I shall be dealing with that point later in my speech.

Mr. John Morris: Will the hon. Member for Flint, West (Sir A. Meyer) clarify one matter for the assistance of the House? Did he tell the electorate that his assertion that there was a letter on the Minister's desk was based on a hunch, as he has just told the House? Did he use the word " hunch "?

Sir A. Meyer: I certainly do not withdraw the word " hunch ". How could I possibly know what letters were on the Minister's desk—[Interruption.] I said that precisely in order to give—

Mr. John Morris: Is that the best that the hon. Gentleman can do?

Sir A. Meyer: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman seriously think that I employ spies within the offices of the various Departments? Of course not. There was every opportunity to deny my claim, and the right hon. Member for Chesterfield waited until after the general election, when he had no further responsibility in the matter, before doing so.
In the expansionist climate of the early 1970s the concept of a large competitive British steel industry, based on the Japanese example, was perhaps permissible. In today's climate, however, of a protracted world trade recession and the growing competition of low-cost producers, there is no longer a case for a large-scale competitive British steel industry. The case for British Streel now is primarily a strategic one, that it is necessary to maintain a steel-making capacity in this country in contemplation of a possible national emergency such as a military or economic blockade. If the case is strategic, Shotton is obviously the best bet because it has proved itself more reliable than Port Talbot I lanwern or Ravenscraig.
However, and this is where I turn to vain regrets, the option of keeping Shotton open as part of a plan for a strategic steel industry was foreclosed by the failure of the BSC to invest in the modernisation of Shotton's steel making equipment during the period of the reprieve and by the terrifying mounting losses of the British steel industry as a whole at a time when the need for cuts in Government expenditure became inevitable.
The British Steel Corporation cannot go on imposing its intolerable burden of losses on the rest of British industry without dragging the nation into bankruptcy. In the same way, the Shotton workers can be left in uncertainty no longer. The delay itself was becoming intensely damaging. The Government must therefore stop the haemorrhage.
What, then, are the consequences for Shotton? What future does it face if the steel making goes, and what is the future for North-East Clwyd when 10,000 jobs are to be removed at a stroke? How can Shotton's finishing lines, on which the remaining 4,000 jobs depend, be fed with coil? Is it to come from Ravenscraig, where the ore terminal at Hunterston, which is an essential element in the operation, still, after a year, has not handled an ounce of ore?
Is the coil to come from abroad? I say frankly that when we get to the appropriate point I shall argue most strongly that to enable the finishing lines at Shotton to operate profitably, coil from abroad must be brought in if necessary.
The BSC must be compelled to produce much more convincing figures than it ever produced when it was proposed in 1973 to feed Shotton's finishing lines with coil from Port Talbot. Those sums just did not add up, and nothing that we have been allowed to see—and we have been allowed to see very little in the way of costings for bringing the coil from Ravenscraig to Shotton—encourages the belief that the finishing lines at Shotton can be supplied more cheaply from Ravenscraig than from Shotton's own steel making equipment.

Dr. Bray: In his attack upon nationalisation and the strategy the hon. Gentleman does not seem to take account of the fact that the original proposal was

put forward in the Benson plan, while the industry was still in private ownership, and that that set the pattern that has been followed by the British Steel Corporation since. As to the possibility of supply from Ravenscraig, the hon. Gentleman will, no doubt, be aware that Ravenscraig is already knocking 2 million tonnes a year, with new plant, and is in a position to go up to 3 million tonnes later this year. The actual detailed phasing of it, in conjunction of the relining of the third blast furnace, is a matter which the Corporation is looking into at the moment.
I suggest that the hon. Gentleman would serve his constituents best if, instead of producing romantic visions of strategic justification of excessive capacity throughout the Corporation, he were to address himself to the human problem, as my hon. Friend the Member for Flint, East (Mr. Jones) did, and say where the jobs are to come from, concentrating attention on that.

Sir A. Meyer: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making my speech for me, and I am grateful also for his assurance of continuity of supply from Ravenscraig, which will, no doubt, be reassuring to the good workers at Shotton. But they will still want to be reassured on transport costs, and that reassurance, I think, is beyond the hon. Gentleman's power to give me now, for all his immense ability.
Even if we get watertight assurances from the British Steel Corporation that it can supply coil to Shotton at a cost that will enable the finishing lines to remain competitive, we shall need the further reassurance that there is to be established on Deeside a major user of the finished product from Shotton.
If we have the assurance of supply, and if we have the assurance of requirement for Shotton's finished product, this may go some way towards relieving the anxieties of those whose jobs at Shotton are, in theory, still safe. But in the question whether we get this big user or these big users into Deeside, much depnds on the regional industrial policy announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry today. As I said earlier, I warmly welcome the much more selective nature of the aid that he proposes to give, and I believe that this will have a remarkable effect in


concentrating investment in the areas where it is most needed.
The record of the Conservative Party in this matter is better than that of the Labour Party, and it is certainly far more honest. Nevertheless, I shall vote against my own Ministers at the conclusion of the debate. I shall do so not to condemn them for bowing to the inevitable, though I express sorrow that a Conservative Government could not find some way of rewarding hard work and devotion to duty. Still less shall I be voting to express approval of the Labour Party, now in opposition, which has never shown the slightest disposition to reward hard work or devotion to duty and which has used Shotton to buy votes at election time while shamefully neglecting it between elections.
I shall be voting to express my dismay at the wrong decisions taken by Governments of both parties and, above all, my dismay at the conduct of the management of the British Steel Corporation, which has so readily sacrificed a fine works and a magnificent body of workers to others who were greedier and more vocal.

5.53 p.m.

Mr. Cyril Smith: When the hon. Member for Flint, West (Sir A. Meyer) says that this decision has been a tragic mistake, I agree with him. It is a tragic mistake, and however slippery the Secretary of State for Industry may try to be on this matter, the decision will be seen for what it is. When the right hon. Gentleman was answering at the Dispatch Box today I got the impression that he was behaving rather like a slippery eel, saying that it was not really his decision, that it was the British Steel Corporation's decision, although, of course—this is what it came to—" I suppose that I could have stopped it, but I did not try to stop it; it is the Corporation's decision, not mine ", and so on.
However slippery the right hon. Gentleman may have attempted to be and thought he was at the Box today, I believe that the people of Flint will form their own view, whether it suits the right hon. Gentleman or not. They will see this as a decision taken as a consequence of Government policy, and there is nothing else for it. The right hon.

Gentleman can blame the British Steel Corporation. Factually that may be true, but it is equally true in practice that if he had wanted to prevent this closure or, more important—I shall come back to this—delay the decision until other decisions had been taken, he could effectively have done that. He chose not to do so.
If I recall aright, the right hon. Gentleman said also—or perhaps it was one of his hon. Friends—that the taxpayer cannot continue to pay for surplus labour and surplus capacity. I submit that in practice the taxpayer pays for surplus capacity and for surplus labour. He may be paying for it out of another fund, or in some other way, but if in the area where the surplus arises there is no way of taking up that surplus by alternative industry, the taxpayer pays, even if he pays through such means as unemployment benefit, social security benefit, and so on.
The truth is that the taxpayer pays. That is the first point that I make. It is time that the present Government got the message that it is better to pay a man to work than it is to pay him not to work. They must recognise the consequences of developing unemployment through precipitate policies that are not thought out in the long term. They have been in office for only a few weeks, and they cannot at this stage have thought out their long-term strategy in this matter. If they create unemployment in the short term, before having worked out their long-term strategy, inevitably the taxpayer will pay. That is a serious reflection on the Government.
I visited Shotton steelworks some years ago. I agree entirely with the Secretary of State and others who have said that there is an excellent work force there. I pay tribute to the Shotton workers, but, with respect, it is not much good paying tribute to an excellent body of workers and saying, in effect, " You have all been great boys, you have not had any strikes, and you are really marvellous, but all the same you are sacked ".
We are told that it is not the Government's fault, that it is the British Steel Corporation's fault, that the Secretary of State has no power to intervene, and that that is the end of it—" You have all been great and, naturally, we shall arrange a system that gives you a large amount of


compensation, adequately compensating you for the loss of your jobs ".
The Government must understand that financial compensation is no compensation for psychological deprivation. The Conservative Party apparently fails to understand the misery that mass unemployment brings to a community. We can compensate miners; we can compensate steel workers; we can compensate whoever we like with thousands of pounds per head, but unless we give a man's mind something to occupy it we in no way compensate that man for the loss of the opportunity to work.
I agree entirely with the strategic view that there is not a lot to be said in favour of bailing out lame-duck industries, but what matters is that we have to be satisfied that the lame duck cannot be made well again. I have never been satisfied that the situation at Shotton is such that the steelworks could not be made a competitive unit. I think that it was the hon. Member for Flint, West who said that the British Steel Corporation could not shut these works quickly enough.
I recall my limited experience and knowledge—I admit that it is limited—of the Shotton story. Over the years that I have come into contact with it I have always had the opinion that in the end the British Steel Corporation would ditch Shotton. I have never been confident that the Corporation really wanted to save it and make it a viable proposition. As I have never had that confidence, I cannot believe that real efforts have been made to invest in new machinery at Shotton, to ensure its competitiveness. If that investment had taken place, Shotton could have produced various types of steel and taken part in processes within the steel industry to ensure a continuity of work and a future as a profitable section of British industry in general and of the British Steel Corporation in particular.

The Under-Secretary of State for Industry (Mr. Michael Marshall): I know that the hon. Gentleman is trying to be fair. Does he agree that a five-year delay, which took place under the previous Administration, is equally damaging in terms of loss of morale and loss of profitability by continuing to use antiquated open hearth furnaces?

Mr. Smith: I concede that there is something in what the Minister says but

I do not concede his argument entirely. Much depends on what is done in five years. If closure is delayed for five years and nothing is done in the interim, so that closure becomes inevitable at the end of that period, that is disgraceful, shocking and indefensible. However, if in five years an attempt is made to ascertain whether the industry can be profitable, whether closure is inevitable, whether there is any other way of ensuring continuity, and, what is more important, if there is another way of preparing for closure so that when it takes place there is alternative employment for the thousands of men who are affected by it, delay is certainly defensible. Indeed, it is not merely defensible: it is an attractive proposition.
The Government's timing of the decision is indefensible. The announcement was made shortly before the drastic alteration of regional policies. Regional incentives have been removed. Incentives have been given to industry to encourage it to go to the South-East and to leave the North. Whatever the Government may say, I believe that that is the consequence of the policy that has been announced today. I believe that it is a deliberate policy. The lot who are now the Opposition had a policy of regional aid for all constituencies that were about to have a by-election. The Government are now introducing a policy of regional aid for all the regions that voted Conservative in the recent general election and those that are likely to do so at the next election.
The consequence of the Government's policy is disastrous for the North of England. It will do nothing to help areas of high unemployment. The announcement of the Government's policy is ill-timed because it has come when so many rumours, or threats, are circulating about what the Government will announce in the coming few days or few weeks. I accept that some of the rumours will be ill-founded. We do not know what the Government's programme will be for training and retraining in industry. We have learnt a little about their policy of attracting industry to certain areas but we do not know a great deal about their policies for the retention of industry and investment grants. We do not know what the olicies will be for other major industries. We do not know how many


thousands will be put on the dole or not put on the dole as a consequence of Government policy still to be announced.
A closure has been announced in isolation and thousands are to be put on the dole in isolation. We are not able to weigh the social consequences and balance them against all the other policies that are threatened but not yet announced. For that reason apart from any others I consider the decision to be extremely ill-timed. I compliment the hon. Member for Flint, East (Mr. Jones) on obtaining the debate and enabling these matters to be put to the Government.
The Shotton closure is a tragedy. It is ill-timed and ill-conceived. The closure lies at the feet of the Government. For all those reasons my colleagues and I will be voting against the Government.

6.5 p.m.

Mr. Peter Fry: The Liberal spokesman, the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith), displayed his party's usual quality by saying that it does not want lame ducks and in the next breath suggesting that many lame ducks should continue hopping almost indefinitely.
I accept that the timing has been unfortunate. It is true that closures, whether at Shotton or Corby, can hardly be a shattering surprise to the House or to the respective work forces. It ill behoves the Labour Party, if it genuinely wanted to be honest and to fight the general election with clean hands, to wait until after the election before expressing itself on the steel industry. It should have said before the election that the steelworks would not be closed, but it did not do so. It waited until after the election.
Nearly all the steel workers in Shotton and Corby knew that the sword of closure was over them and their jobs during the election campaign. One of the results was that the hon. Member for Kettering (Mr. Homewood) just about scraped home in a previously safe Labour seat. The steel workers knew that they would be deserted by a Labour Government even if one had been re-elected on  May. Let us have no hypocrisy on either side of the House.
I accept what the hon. Member for Rochdale said about social consequences.

The consequences are immense when a one-industry town suffers a cutback. I hope that I shall not have a detrimental effect on your good temper. Mr. Deputy Speaker, if I try to draw an analogy from what must be happening in Shotton for what is happening in Northamptonshire.
We spend much of our time beating our breasts about how terrible are the consequences of closures and how more and more taxpayers' money must be used to maintain jobs. Far too little attention is being given to tackling the problems of towns that are wedded to one industry and face an appalling future.
Many of my constituents work or have businesses in Corby. It is not only the industry itself that collapses. Also involved are the many others who depend upon the industry and upon earning power within the town. They suffer as well. The House and the Government must consider the wider context. It is not enough to say that it is the decision of the British Steel Corporation, because it is a social tragedy of monumental proportions in a place such as Shotton or Corby. The consequences to the county ratepayers and the national taxpayers are considerable. I hope that the Government will take it on board that there are steps that they can take.
There are three specifics that may be related to the problem in North Wales. First, in many one-industry towns communications have tended not to keep pace with modern requirements. That is certainly true of Corby. If only successive Governments had realised that one of the requirements for industrial development is good communications and had gone ahead with building good approach roads, other industry might have been attracted.

Mr. Ogden: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that North Wales and Merseyside have the best motorways, rail communications and immediate airports of any part of the United Kingdom? His comments may apply to Corby but they do not apply to North Wales.

Mr. Fry: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. My comments certainly apply to Corby. I accept that the answer to the problems of Shotton may lie in a different direction. My argument is valid in other areas where closures will be faced. Successive Governments have not


set about improving communications. The issue as it affects Northamptonshire is still lying on the Minister's desk, as it remained on his predecessor's desk for many months.
Secondly, we have a competing set of development authorities. Nationalised industries and development corporations are in competition either to develop in one area or to attract jobs to an area in competition with other towns and areas. The Government cannot sit back and allow that wasteful competition. Peterborough, Milton Keynes and Northampton are all desperately competing to attract jobs and industry, and in the middle of the county there is a disaster area.

Mr. Heffer: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I agree that it is important that the problems of Corby are fully explained in the House. However, there are hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber who represent areas that surround Shotton and they have something to say about Shotton's problems. It seems that we have two debates taking place at the same time, one about Corby and the other about Shotton. I ask that those who are concerned about Shotton's problems be allowed to speak.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The debate is about steel-making in Shotton and we must keep to that.

Mr. Fry: Subject to any further interruptions, I shall not delay the House much longer.
I was trying to say, for the benefit of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer), that the solutions to these problems have not been properly exercised or investigated. The Government have a responsibility to see that in an area such as Shotton, or any other area to which jobs must be attracted, some kind of influence is brought to bear on the authorities. That is the Government's responsibility. I accept the point made by the hon. Member for Rochdale.
It is strange that we should be debating this matter on a day when we heard the Secretary of State's statement. If there ever was a case for special assistance, it is in an area such as this, where a large number of jobs will be lost, almost all in one fell swoop.
I ask the Government to look at the case of Shotton or any similar town in

which one industry has been virtually the sole employer—that is, where special assistance is needed much more than over a wider region—so that greater opportunity can be provided.
I shall not delay the House any further but shall give way to other hon. Members, including Members of the Opposition, who may address themselves to Shotton more precisely than I have done.

6.12 p.m.

Mr. Tom Ellis: The history of the steel industry since the war has been a sorry and depressing tale, sometimes verging on the disastrous.
I was glad to hear the references made by hon. Members on both sides of the House to the equal culpability of both parties. We have a lot to answer for in respect of the present position of the British steel industry.
The essential problem that is reflected in the issue of Shotton is the question of interventionism—the skills that are required and are manifestly not present in this whole range of governmental intervention. I should like to talk about that problem and Shotton.
I shall start with some history from 1972 onwards. Reference was made to the Secretary of State in 1972—the right hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Walker)—in relation to the problems of the British steel industry. They were well known. The Lope Donesch process had been invented previously. Technically other steel industries were way ahead of us. It was not a question that small was good or big is beautiful. The question was that with the LD technical set-up the 5 million tonner, the 10 million tonner or the 15 million tonner was the obvious suitable size for a steelworks. In our case, as we did not have large steelworks, the 5 million tonner was the correct one at which to aim.
The technical points were summed up in this way: in 1972 we knew that if the British steel industry produced flat out to its full capacity of 27 million tones we should have produced about 140 tonnes per man per year. We may haggle about the statistics, and whether we should include the work done by the lorry drivers. Many of our competitors were producing steel at 450 or 500 tonnes per man.

Mr. Donald Coleman: Does my hon. Friend agree that had the private owners in the past been a little more diligent in putting new investment into Shotton we might not have been in the present difficulty?

Mr. Ellis: I tried to be equally generous to both sides of the House with my blame. I do not want to become involved in an ideological argument about private industry or nationalisation. That is a sterile argument. It is about 70 years old. It has nothing to do with the contemporary problems that face us.
In 1972 the British steel industry was not in a competitive position. At the time I asked what markets we should require for the steel that we would produce with the labour force that we had if we produced it at the same efficiency as the best of our competitors. The answer was about 90 million tonnes. We knew that there was not the faintest hope of having a market for 90 million tonnes. That was the position. The job of a politician is to be a realist. It is our responsibility to be realists. If we know what the facts are, it is our job to speak out about them. We knew that in 1972.
As a consequence of the technical situation, the then Secretary of State decided to make available £3,000 million to the BSC to put its house in order and for modernisation. We handed over the money to the professional men and said " Get on with the job ". The answer of the BSC was threefold: 40,000 jobs, over the whole of Britain, over 10 years. That was the nub of the problem. As politicians we should be ashamed of ourselves that we were unable to tackle a fairly simple technical and social problem. We did not do that. We dilly-dallied. A number of events occurred which were reflected in the history of steel since 1947—nationalisation, denationalisation, comings and goings and lack of continuity.
In this case there was an election. The capriciousness of political interventionism was apparent, as there was a general election. The Government said " Hold on. We do not trust the BSC. We shall put in our man to look into the whole matter." I did not think a great deal of the BSC management—I am referring not to Sir Monty Finniston or the present chairman but to the professional, established management. I did not think that they were

the world's greatest men in terms of imaginative foresight, but they were the professional people involved.
I have had some experience as a professional engineer I managed a coal mine for 13 years. I do not claim that I was the greatest colliery manager in the world. However, my pit is the last one still working in Wrexham, when technically it should have been the first to close. However, I must not get carried away. If a Member of Parliament had told me how to run my pit I should have said " If you want to run this pit you can have the job ". I smile when I hear that Select Committees send for people from various industries to ask them what is happening. I nearly tabled an early-day motion when the Serjeant at Arms sent his clerk to fetch Sir Charles Villiers. I thought that the Serjeant at Arms should have gone clothed in pantaloons, with his sword, and marched Sir Charles up Piccadilly so that the whole world could see how the House of Commons conducted itself at the tail end of the twentieth century.
When a technical issue is to be solved it ill behoves politicians to come in like bulls in china shops, even allowing for a certain amount of lack of ability on the part of management. The CIGS told Winston Churchill in the war, when he was meddling in the Middle East, that he should either trust his general or sack him. That is basically the position in which we are. We have the British Steel Corporation. It is the best British Steel Corporation that we have got. We must put up with it and make do with it.
On the technical point, the matter was clear. The lobbyists came to the House from East Moors, Ebbw Vale and Shotton. One thousand of my constituents worked at Shotton. I told the 200 people involved that their best bet was to accept the steelworks closure and use their political clout to insist on having alternative industries to redeploy people. That took place in 1973. People disagreed with me. They were entitled to do so. They rejected my advice. I gave it sincerely. I do not claim that it was necessarily the wisest advice, although I think that it was. My advice was rejected and the decision was made to fight for the retention of the steel-making capacity at Shotton. That decision having been


made, I did not try to put a spanner in the works but helped wherever I could.
I am saying all this, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for one reason—to make clear to the Secretary of State that I am not speaking from a soap box. I am not simply shouting cheap slogans, or trying to make smart party political points; I am trying to speak as a reasonably intelligent man concerned for his constituents who are involved in this steelworks, which has such a desperate problem on its hands. I am trying my best to put forward a fair-minded and balanced point of view. I am speaking not from a party ideological angle but from the point of view of doing the best that is possible for the people of Shotton.
I turn now to the nub of the problem of interventionism. We cannot adequately undertake from Whitehall or from Westminster the microeconomic steering of industry. I have seen many examples, in many nationalised industries, of complete hashes being made by interventions on the part of completely misguided politicians—very often for the most cynical of party political reasons.

Mr. Ogden: My hon. Friend says that we cannot undertake the microeconomic steering of industry from Westminster, but can we make a simple decision? Are we to close Shotton and set up an alternative industrial development estate, at a costs of umpteen million pounds, which will be in direct competition with the one that we already have on Merseyside? That is a practical issue, which we ought to be able to decide.

Mr. Ellis: I was coming to that point. I am sorry to have been so long in getting to it. I realise that we no longer live in the world of Adam Smith. Somewhere between the microeconomic and the macroeconomic aspects there is the need for Government intervention, and it is crucial to get the balance right.
I was a little upset by the questions and answers arising earlier today from the statement about regional aid. I should like to quote from a White Paper published in May 1975 on regional development incentives—Cmnd. 6058. It is pointed out that
Had Scotland, Wales and Northern England secured 42 per cent. (their share of Great Britain employment in 1960)"—

this is an interesting figure because we have just chopped down the figure from 42 per cent. to about 25 per cent.—
 of national employment growth during the 1960s, they would have experienced a growth of 270,000; in fact their employment fell by 100,000. Of the deficiency of 370,000, 180,000 was attributed to developments within the services sectors; 120,000 was attributable to the primary sector largely arising from the disproportionate dependence on coal mining; and only 70,000 to the manufacturing sector ".
That loss of 370,000 jobs in those three regions was matched, during that decade, by an increase in jobs of almost exactly the same number in the South-East and the Midlands. That was in the 1960s, when we were in a boom period. The Western world was experiencing a boom such as it had never previously experienced, and yet that is what happened—we lost 370,000 jobs.
In the light of this, one might ask how seriously we can take the regional policies of Governments. As I see it, the whole issue at Shotton hinges on the sincerity and the good faith of Governments, and the will, the insistence and the resolution of Governments to do something in order to solve the technical problems involved in putting the steel industry on its feet.
I have to admit that the Secertary of State is honest about the matter—or reasonably honest. He pretends to be concerned about making regional policy more effective. But the crucial factor in regional policy is the IDC, which has been muted and stultified for about 10 years. Unemployment reached 6 per cent. in the West Midlands, so we had to do away with the IDC. That was why I was so concerned about having a Welsh Assembly. It would have done much more for Shotton than a Select Committee of 11 people from this House who, presumably, are to try to analyse the Welsh division of the British Steel Corporation, the water works, and all the rest of it.
The Secretary of State is lacking in credibility because of his ideological commitment to the Adam Smith philosophy—the free market philosophy. He will be in that unfortunate position when—as I hope he will—he goes to speak to the workers of Shotton. I hope that he will not leave it to Sir Charles Villiers. While the Secretary of State is not entitled to run the British Steel Corporation, he is entitled, along with the Secretary of State for Wales, to shoulder responsibility for


some of the consequences of the actions of the BSC in East Flint. When the Secretary of State goes to see the people at Shotton he will carry the burden of knowing they will be aware that he is not seriously committed ideologically to the concept of the Government doing something.
The big issue, as we know, is between Shotton and Port Talbot. What has happened at Port Talbot? Ford was brought to Port Talbot, at a time when there was already a shortage of craftsmen there. If there was ever to be a quid pro quo, with a new factory coming in to replace a works being closed, there was the opportunity at Shotton.
These are the issues as I see them, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I suggest that the way ahead for the Government is to say " We shall allow Shotton to be closed only when we can guarantee that every one of the people employed in the works will be employed on alternative work in that locality." Until the Government can give that assurance, they should not for one minute contemplate allowing the BSC to go ahead with its plan to close the works.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: May I make another appeal for brevity? If we have 18-minute speeches, very few hon. Members will be able to get into this important debate.

6.29 p.m.

Mr. Barry Porter: I represent a constituency which borders on North Wales. About 8 per cent. of the work force at Shotton resides in my constituency. I have a great interest in the problem, and I have been under great pressure, with telegrams and lobbies urging me to speak out for the workers of Shotton. I intend to do that, but not, perhaps, in the way that they would wish. I would not be true to myself, to my constituents or to the workers at Shotton if I pretended that there was any way in which I could support the long-term viability of Shotton as a steel-making plant. In that respect I agree entirely with what the hon. Member for Wrexham (Mr. Ellis) said—and I am glad that he said it as long ago as 1973. I think that it was true in 1973 and that it is equally true today.
I listened with interest to what the hon. Member for Flint, East (Mr. Jones) said, because his reputation in the steel world is second to none. I am sorry to say that nothing that he said this afternoon will lead me to change my view. I listened hopefully to the deliberations of my hon. Friend the Member for Flint, West (Sir A. Meyer) and again I am sorry to say that I heard nothing new.
One matter that was lightly touched upon was the promise by Sir Charles Villiers in March 1977. Both Front Benches have been guilty this afternoon of brushing aside a promise made by the chairman of the British Steel Corporation. It has been pointed out by the Government that various promises were made in the past and disregarded. I am sorry to say that there seems to be a consensus between the two Front Benches that circumstances change, that economic circumstances are different, and so on. Sir Charles Villiers did not make his promise subject to anything. He said that the open hearth furnaces would be kept in prime condition and the Shotton option would remain open until 1982. That was not qualified. He did not say " subject to Government persuasion ", or " subject to economic circumstances ". I am somewhat old-fashioned. I believe that promises of that nature that are freely entered into should be kept.
What has changed since 1977?—

Mr. Alec Jones: We have a Tory Government.

Mr. Butler: That was expected. I had thought better of the Labour Front Bench than to expect that sort of sedentary intervention.
We know that the previous Secretary of State said that there was a cash limit objective. The chairman of the BSC knew all about that. At that stage he did not indicate to anyone that he thought circumstances had changed and that those to whom he had made his promise had better look at the matter again. He did not say that at all.

Mr. Porter: I do not think much of the argument between the two Front Benches about whether a cash limit objective is significantly different from a cash limit that would be imposed. I should have thought that right hon. and hon. Members on both Front Benches would have


thought more carefully before indulging in semantics. We are talking about people's jobs and livelihoods.
Apart from the cash limit, or cash objective, what has changed since 1977? It was known then that there was a gross over-capacity in the steel industry. It was known then that at least 25,000 jobs had been lost between 1973 and the end of 1977. It was known then that capacity in most regions was about 70 to 73 per cent. compared with 90 per cent. in 1973. In 1977 it was known that there was increasing competition from Third world countries with low costs. It was known in 1977 that in Europe as a whole cutbacks in production were necessary, that the employment position would deteriorate and that steel making was operating at a huge loss of about £2,000 million. All that was known in 1977.
I am surprised that no one has mentioned that against that background, and because of it, we had the Davignon proposals of October 1978. They were formulated to provide financial help for the modernisation of the steel industry and the assistance of redundant workers. Those proposals were approved, and rightly so, by the Council of Ministers in the following few months.
The British Steel Corporation knew all those things in 1977 when Sir Charles Villiers made his promise. I do not ask for a decision about Shotton to be put off. Discussion, argument, proposal and counter-proposal has gone on for far too long. Every nut and bolt has been examined and every alternative considered. The political and social consequences have been adequately and sensibly discussed.
It does not take a genius to see what is likely to happen not only in North Wales but in other areas such as Merseyside, the docks of Birkenhead and Wallasey and my constituency, because of the domino effect. All I ask for, having made it clear that I do not think that there is a viable future for Shotton as a steel-making plant, is that the time indicated by the BSC should at least be given. That was a pledge that should be honoured.
I believe, like the hon. Member for Wrexham, that the decision should have been taken years ago. I did not wish to make a speech of this nature this after-

noon. It would have been easier, as a new Member, to have come here and asked for reconsideration of the position, more discussion, and so on. However, I believe that that would be dishonest. I am not, and never will be, prepared to back any proposal or move that will keep not only Shotton but any steel-producing plant in being if it is not viable in its own context or within the context of BSC as a whole. I do not think that, in the long run, that is in the interests of the people working in the steel industry.
The people whom we talk of this afternoon are not a drifting, transitory population. Most, if not all, have given the bulk of their working lives to this industry. Everything that I have heard from them during the course of the last few weeks indicates to me that they knew that the closure of Shotton was imminent. They are prepared to face it, provided that they are given some time.
This announcement is rather like an amputation without an anaesthetic. I ask my right hon. Friend to use the powers of persuasion which he concedes he has to attempt to persuade the British Steel Corporation to do us the honour of giving us a local anaesthetic so that we can re-adapt and improve, and think about what will happen. It is not just money, or a matter of redundancy payments; it is a question of changing the life of a community, and we need time for that.

6.37 p.m.

Mr. Eric S. Heffer: The speech of the hon. Member for Bebington and Ellesmere Port (Mr. Porter) was a good example of how, when hon. Members live close to a problem, they are very much affected by such a closure as this. Regrettably, I can speak with ome authority on the subject of closures, because I seem to have made more speeches in the last few years on the subject than on any other. I have spoken on closures in one kind of industry or another throughout the whole of Merseyside.
The hon. Member for Bebington and Ellesmere Port said that if a decision had to be made, it would have been better had it been made earlier. Of course, that is always the argument when talking about any factory that apparently becomes non-viable. That could have


been the argument in respect of Rolls-Royce. It could have been said that there was a cash flow problem, that money was required for research and development, and that the loss was so great that Rolls-Royce should be closed. However, the answer was not to close Rolls-Royce but to look at the problem closely and deal with it. That is what was done. Rolls-Royce was brought into public ownership by a Conservative Government. The legislation was carried through in less than one day, with the support of the Labour Party.
I want to talk about Shotton in personal, human terms. I know the workers at Shotton as personal friends. I know the consequences that such a closure will have on those workers, their families, and youngsters in that area, who will grow up to face a lack of alternative employment if Shotton is closed. They cannot go to work in Merseyside, because there are more than enough unemployed in Merseyside. Merseyside cannot offer employment to these people.
In fact, many of the workers at Shotton are from Merseyside. If one listens to them speak, one discovers that they have good Liverpool accents, because they had to go to Shotton in order to get employment. Incidentally, that also answers the nonsense about Merseyside workers not being good workers, because the workers at Shotton have hardly ever had a dispute. Industrial relations have been absolutely marvellous for many years.
We must look at the people who are concerned in this problem and also at the social consequences. This is the difference in attitude between Labour Members and Conservative Members. Every closure that took place during the period of the last Government was a closure that tore at the heartstrings of all Labour Members, whether they were Front Benchers or Back Benchers. When I was Minister of State at the Department of Industry, every closure made me feel sick in my stomach, and made me quite ill, when I thought of the workers who were being thrown out on to the streets.
When we decided in 1974 that we would have another look at the steel situation, we did so because we were

concerned about the workers and the small towns that would be affected. We were concerned about the prospects for the youth of such families and the social consequences of such closures. That is the issue which the right hon. Gentleman, with his philosophy, has totally ignored.
I must tell the right hon. Gentleman—I said this to my own Government—that something that we in this House have never done is properly to get down to the question of alternative employment. That is one of the problems. Of course I accept that many old-fashioned industries that have outlived their usefulness must go, but any Government worth their salt should concern themselves not with leaving it to market forces but with intervening in order to create new employment opportunities for the work force and their families. That has been the argument between us.
In fact, when the question of steel was discussed, we set up groups to look into the problems of those areas to see what sort of alternative employment could be introduced. Ebbw Vale is a very good example of the type of activity that was carried out by the Labour Government. Is the right hon. Gentleman suggesting something of that kind? No. His attitude seems to be " Shotton must close. We cannot do anything about it. We must leave it to the BSC ". He may think that that is the end of the matter, but it is not and neither can it be.
The hon. Member for Bebington and Ellesmere Port rightly said that it is not only the workers of Shotton who are affected. The Bidston docks will go out of existence, and that will affect other workers on Merseyside. Other minor companies will also be affected. The ramifications of this closure will be disastrous for an area that already has high levels of unemployment.

Mr. James A. Dunn: It starts with the men who man ships that go into the docks and the provisions of the shore establishments that unload. This closure will have a domino effect, which will gather momentum, and at the end of the day it will double the redundancy situation in docks, with other consequential ripples throughout the whole of the county. It will not only lead to redundancy; it will go much further


and deeper. It highlights a situation about which we must remind ourselves—that a pledge was given and that that pledge has been broken.

Mr. Heffer: My hon. Friend has put his argument very clearly, and has underlined the point that I was making.
What can we say in this situation? The only thing that we can do is to appeal to the Government to intervene and to ask the BSC to reconsider this closure and at the same time to begin working out alternative employment opportunities over a period of time. That is all that we can do.

Sir Keith Joseph: Both hon. Members forget that raising the money from the taxpayer to keep Shotton going would also have consequentials in lost jobs. They would not be identified jobs, but they would be lost jobs, which would also have a domino effect. What happens to Ravenscraig, and the employment that Scotland wants from Ravenscraig, if the heavy end of Shotton is kept going and there is less output from Ravenscraig? Neither hon. Member is taking into consideration all the implications of his argument.

Mr. Heffer: The right hon. Gentleman always introduces his basic philosophical point of view. One could spend an entire afternoon discussing it. I hope that one day he will give me the opportunity of doing so. On one occasion, we were to have had a public debate, but for some reason that fell through. I would love to have such a debate, but obviously this is not the occasion. I would not be looked upon kindly by my hon. Friends if I persisted in an argument along those lines.
I still think that the right hon. Gentleman should listen to his hon. Friends the Members for Flint, West (Sir A. Meyer), and Bebington and Ellesmere Port, as well as to my hon. Friends, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Flint, East (Mr. Jones). In such a debate we cannot discuss all the ramifications for the steel industry. We are talking about one community, which has a very serious problem. I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to think again. The hon. Member for Flint, West said that if only modernisation had taken place earlier these problems would not have arisen. I agree

with him. Why did not the private enterprise people—Summers—during the 1960s carry out the modernisation that ought to have been undertaken? Had they done so, the situation today would have been different. I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to think again because of the social consequences for the workers in that area as well as for the whole of Merseyside and Deeside.

6.48 p.m.

Mr. John H. Osborn: I value the Secretary of State's intervention, because I should like to ask what would happen if Shotton were to stay. Who else would have to face the axe? Admittedly, I come from a different steel making area, but I have worked with Shotton and with the people that have been involved there.
I value the graphic description that we have had of blast furnaces, and steel furnaces, but, of course, open hearth furnaces are not necesarily the answer these days. I rather resent the use by the hon. Member for Flint, East (Mr. Jones) of the emotive words " class war ", because many of us recognise that Great Britain has a problem. Indeed, Western Europe has a problem. One example of that problem is what is happening at Shotton.
Of course, there has been an attack on Government policy—not only over two months but over many years—and of the consequences of it. Perhaps the inheritance of 15 years of nationalisation is partly to blame. There has been a suggestion that Summers did not invest sufficiently at the other end of the business. But some leading trade names were developed which compete with Sheffield, because they developed coated steel of various types which compete with the rustless and stainless steels.
However, throughout this period we have had the growth of a mixed economy, so mixed that the corporate State accounts for about 60 per cent. of the gross national product. Therefore, our decision making has been rather mixed, with this mixed economy approach.
I came to this debate thinking entirely of Shotton. Corby has been mentioned, and we could mention Stanton and Staveley and Bilston. But the hard fact is that least year the steel industry cost us £443 million in losses, and £309 million


since then. That has to be paid for mainly by the taxpayer, if not by increased borrowing powers, and, of course, the capital investment programme takes place alongside it.
A year ago, almost to this weekend, I attended a debate in the European Parliament on the Davignon plan and its operation in connection with the steel works at Metz. Their problem, to an extent, was similar to that of Shotton, but more similar to that of Corby. A week before the Euro-elections a " Panorama " television programme run by Charles Wheeler commented on the severity of the distaste of the system in France, and the demonstrations that had taken place in Paris.
I met the steel workers from Metz and they said, " Why cannot we use our indigenous ores? " That is another problem. The iron ores in Metz, as in Northampton, are low in iron content. In Metz they are over 30 per cent. and in Northampton they are somewhat lower. With the rising cost of energy, the idea of using low grade ores becomes increasingly prohibitive because of the energy costs that go into steel making.
I have had the privilege of visiting steelworks in India, South Africa, and the Soviet Union and on the Ruhr. I visited a new steel works on the Orinoco 10 years ago, and I hope to have the chance to do so again. It used cheap electric power, coal, and rich iron ore which, by flotation methods, was concentrated up to 80 per cent. or 90 per cent. iron content. Ten years ago, those people could not make or melt steel. My guess is that the competence of that works will make it one of those competing with the old-established industries of Britain and Europe.
I visited the Nippon steelworks in Japan several years ago. That plant had a capacity of 10 million tonnes with three blast furnaces. Two steelworks of that type would virtually match the full production that we are able to produce and sell in Britain. Productivity then, as is no doubt the case now, was possibly 10 to 15 times that of Britain. Looking at our problems and those of Italy, Germany and France, we see that Europe faces an excess capacity of between 25 per cent. and 30 per cent., and that will

hit us in Britain. The reaction at Shotton is the same type of reaction seen elsewhere in the Community.
I had hoped to attend tonight a parliamentary and scientific committee meeting being addressed by Mr. Michael Dowding, last year's president of the Metals Society. Last year he predicted that world demand for steel would rise to 1,500 million tonnes at the turn of the century against the 750 million tonnes of two years ago. Whether he will deal with that subject tonight I do not know.
We have to bear in mind the fact that iron ore, the raw material for our industries, comes from overseas. I suggested that the parliamentary and scientific committee should look at where the indigenous materials for our way of life come from, let alone considering the energy problem.
I welcome the fact that some hon. Members have asked " What do we do now? " They have pleaded that, if there is to be a closure—I welcome the fact that some hon. Members are willing to face up to the need for closure—it should be done slowly and new industry should be brought in.
What distresses me is that during the period when steel was being nationalised. I, with many other hon. Members, looked to the 1980s for outputs of 33 million tonnes to 38 million tonnes a year. The annual report of the BSC shows crude steel production at 17 million tonnes to 18 million tonnes a year.
We cannot castigate every chairman or managing director of the British Steel Corporation. The same is true of past chairmen, whether Lord Melchett or Sir Monty Finniston. The BSC has a responsibility to manage what we, the politicians, have given it. Goodness knows, I did not want any creation like the BSC. It is unmanageable, but until we decide to break it up or do something different with it we must wish the management godspeed and help them to face up to the problems.
I hope that when the Minister replies he will indicate the difficulties facing the management of BSC, and at the same time meet the plea, " If there are to be closures, what else will there be for those people?" Once communities have become used to one industry, sudden change


is intolerable, but gradual change can be accepted.

6.56 p.m.

Mr. Dafydd Wigley: I have a personal and constituency interest in the debate. My constituency interest is that, if Shotton closes, my area of North Wales, the county of Gwynedd, will find it devastatingly hard to attract new work. It will be that much harder because of the announcement made to-day that the travel-to-work areas in Gwynedd are being downgraded. Caernarvon is to be downgraded from special development area to development area, the Conwy employment office from development to intermediate, Pwllheli special development area down to development area, Blaenau Ffestiniog down, Llanrwst down, Llangollen down, Denbigh down. All those are in the catchment area trying to compete with the Shotton area to obtain work, and they are to be downgraded at the very time when massive construction projects are also coming to an end.
That is not my only interest. Having worked in two industries that use steel I know the good name that the Shotton steelworks has in manufacturing industry. It has a good name for the quality of its steel and, perhaps even more important, for the keeping of delivery dates. Those are vital matters in the steel industry at Shotton. They are so important that, even today when there is a central ordering system working in British Steel, customers stipulate that they want Shotton steel delivered to their works.
We have not been shown, today why, if there are to be closures in the steel industry, it is Shotton that should close. Over the past five or six years there have been a number of reports on the steel industry. In 1974 a report from Clwyd county council called " Steel—the ten year development strategy " showed that at that time, granted at higher levels of steel demand, Shotton was not only run at a profit but that its return on capital was consistently higher than that of any other steel mills in Britain. In 1976 another document, " The overwhelming case for the retention of steel making at Shotton " showed that the cost of closing Shotton was considerably more than the cost of modernising it and keeping it

going. To end steel making at Shotton would have cost £88 million, with a further cost of £148 million to create alternative work, giving a total of £236 million.
I know that much of the plant at Shotton is old and needs replacing. That was the case 20 years ago when I first visited the plant. We should have had investment then under private enterprise. There should also have been investment in the intervening period since then under the British Steel Corporation. It is no good the Government saying that it is a question only for the BSC. What the man in the street and the people in Shotton and Clwyd are asking is, who controls British Steel if Parliament and the Government do not? To whom is the BSC answerable? That is a fair question for the whole plethora of nationalised bodies.
There is the danger of a domino theory here. When losses have been attributed and the management of BSC have decided that by taking the axe to this one plant, losses can be cut down, we may well find in a matter of months or years that those losses remain, and the axe will come out to another plant and yet another plant, and so the whole structure goes down. I know how that can be done with product costing in manufacturing industry. The ending of one product leads to another product being closed down, and so to the end of the entire factory. In the matter that we are discussing that would mean the end of the entire steel industry.
I grant that in a position of world over-capacity, and in an industry of massive capital investment, a high utilisation factor is needed to break even. That is clearly so. The question must be faced, perhaps regrettably, whether we can continue importing some of the steels that we are importing at present. There may be a case for strategic or other reasons for having a capacity to manufacture ourselves, and I believe that to be so.
If Shotton closes, there will be not only 6,000 jobs lost in the area but a danger to the railway line that brings in the coal. We do not know how long the coking plant will continue. Certain promises have been made but I doubt if it will continue indefinitely. We also do not know how long the railway line from Wrexham to Birkenhead will continue. There is


also the question how long the other end of the plant will last. Certain guarantees have been given that the coating end will continue, but on the figure of 15,000 tonnes there is no chance of it making a profit. In all probability that will face the axe in due course. The irony is that Shotton is facing closure when one of its major steel users, Hotpoint, has just announced that it is expanding a new plant in the county of Clwyd. There may be greater demand still for steel from Shotton.
The Government have given an undertaking in response to recommendation 27 in the White Paper of April 1978 that social cost-benefit analysis will be undertaken in such decisions, but apart from that we must consider the pure economic situation. In the most recent document, that came out last year, the case was put for investment in tandem furnaces for Shotton. That has not been dealt with in the debate. Those furnaces have proved viable in other countries at a relatively low investment cost of perhaps £50 million, and the output is around 160 tonnes an hour. That possibility will cost less than the massive cost of closing Shotton when no other jobs are available.
I am making a plea not cap in hand on social grounds but in hard economic terms. We have one of the best steel plants in the United Kingdom. Its quality is magnificent, it meets order dates, it can be converted to modern technology at relatively low cost, and we are scrapping it. In its place we shall have to pay £320 per month for the average worker with two childern. That is £25 million per year just for the direct workers. The ecenomic case warrants the Government asking the British Steel Corporation to think again. They should go through the figures and see whether the money can be used in a better way.

7.3 p.m.

Dr. John Cunningham: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Flint, East (Mr. Jones) on a classic defence of his constituency interests. He has carried on that defence successfully for most of the time he has been in this House, as a member of the Government and in opposition. His speech was powerful and moving. His

successful defence of his constituency interests in Shotton may yet prove to be extended.
I was about to refer to the Secretary of State for Industry as a right hon. Gentleman with amazing reticence, but perhaps with the name Joseph I should say with amazing technicolour reticence. It has been exceedingly difficult to get him into the House. Over the past few days we have had press leaks. My hon. Friend the Member for Flint, East was then told by people in the media about the decision, the matter was raised on Standing Order No. 9, there followed a private notice question and finally there is this debate. It has been extraordinarily difficult to persuade the Secretary of State to come to the House and discuss the matter.
The Evening News last night contained the headline
 Maggie tells Joseph to face the music 
I am pleased to see that the Secretary of State is now in the Chamber. It is strange that he has had to be persuaded almost against his will to come here. He did not volunteer a statement on the issue. He had to be told to come here to attend the first performance of his magnum opus—his lifetime's work on the market economy. I am sorry that in doing so he has taken the same view as in the election campaign, when we warned people in Shotton and elsewhere of the consequences of his becoming Secretary of State.
In spite of what he says, hon. Members on both sides of the House have made it clear that the Government have a choice in the matter. It is not good enough for him to say that it is a matter for the British Steel Corporation. The Government came to office saying that they were intent on redressing the balance between the House of Commons and the Executive, and they have made an extraordinarily bad start. In this and other matters they have damaged the credibility of Parliament in the eyes of workers outside and of hon. Members. It is doubly damaging that workers at Shotton and elsewhere have seen promises that have been reinforced in this House brutally swept aside. The right hon. Gentleman apparently sees nothing wrong in that. At a time of such difficulty, when workers in the steel industry and elsewhere are being asked to co-operate with the Government's policies, they cannot be expected


to rely on anyone's word when they see such promises swept aside in a pitiless fashion.
There has been comment as to whether a commitment was given about Shotton. There is no doubt that it was given on 16 March by the chairman of the British Steel Corporation. He said in respect of his decision on Shotton:
 This decision will not be reviewed during BSC's current five-year plan beginning in 1977.
I am in a large measure of agreement with the hon. Member for Bebington and Ellesmere Port (Mr. Porter) about that commitment. It was endorsed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Varley). I find it strange that the hon. Member for Flint, West (Sir A. Meyer) who is renowned in the matter of Shotton for the way that he has changed his stance so many times, not only in this Chamber but in the Welsh Grand Committee, on the radio today and elsewhere, should challenge that. In the debate today he said he did not know whether the allegations that he made during the election were true. I quoted him from Hansard of 21 May 1979 the categorical denial by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield. The hon. Gentleman frankly seemed to be doubting the integrity of that statement, and I find his conduct in the matter wholly deplorable.

Sir A. Meyer: I do not challenge the integrity of the remark. I merely draw attention to the fact that no such denial was made before the result of the general election.

Dr. Cunningham: What is so sad about this episode is that people's livelihoods are at stake, and on the merest whim they are manipulated like yo-yos because the Secretary of State for Industry claims to have no responsibility in the matter. Apparently he attempts to prevent the elected representatives from being given the opportunity to raise the matter in this House. The Secretary of State does not come out of the episode with a great deal of credit. This can only lead to massive disaffection among people, cynicism about this House, about politics generally and about Governments, particularly this one. That is what is so reprehensible about the conduct of the whole matter.
The closure of Shotton is not just a matter for the British Steel Corporation. If that were so, why is the Corporation reneging on the commitments given by its chairman? This contradicts what the Secretary of State for Industry has asserted. Of course the Government have a responsibility. Their industrial and economic policies have affected the decision. The Secretary of State himself is the architect of that policy and it is disingenuous of him to claim that he has no responsibility. These events would not have occurred had a Labour Government been in office today.

Mr. David Hunt: I am grateful to the Opposition spokesman for giving way. Will he explain why, during the five years they were in office, his Government failed to support the introduction of tandem furnaces which would have given Shotton the viability it deserved?

Dr. Cunningham: I am not in a position to go into that matter in the time that is available to me now. I recognise exactly the position that existed when the last Labour Government were in power but the point is that the position would have been reviewed in 1982. No one has attempted to deny that. I say that Shotton would not have been closed in the manner and on the timescale proposed by the Corporation.
Something else strange is happening in the Shotton area. The county council—the Tory colleagues of hon. Members opposite—is questioning the philosophy behind the closure. The council was happy to support all the calls for cuts in public expenditure provided that those cuts did not effect expenditure in its area. This market force policy will cause trouble within the Conservative Party itself and we may yet see a similar turnaround to the one that occurred in 1972.
We call upon the Secretary of State to look at this matter again. It is very important that people in the industry should be able to rely on the pledges given to them and the commitments made in this House and elsewhere. Just as important, the future of a whole community is at stake. The Secretary of State for Industry smiles. If he does not believe me, I shall give him an example in my constituency. In a town called Millom the ironworks closed in 1968.


These ironworks were a private sector company owned by the Cranley Group. The works went into liquidation and more than 30 per cent. of the work force went on the dole in circumstances similar to those at Shotton. Even now, 11 years later, that community has not recovered from those events. It is likely that the same thing will happen at Shotton if this decision stands.
If the decision must stand, we plead with the Government to look again at the timescale. I agree with points made by hon. Members on both sides that the timescale is too short to enable anything realistic to be done. This is especially so against a background of IDC control and regional policy effectiveness as well as against a background of cuts in the money made available for training and retraining in the budget of the Manpower Services Commission. In the light of these circumstances, how can the Government be optimistic about the chances of providing alternative employment in Shotton? It is not reasonable to suppose that they can.
We would like to see the creation of a special task force to look at these problems within a longer timescale. For the people of Shotton the situation has now come full circle. In 1972 a Tory Government proposed closure. Now, in 1979, the same situation obtains.
The Secretary of State is sometimes referred to in the shipyard and steel towns as " the angel of death ". On the Clyde, Wear, Tyne and Tees and in South Wales as well, there are shivers of apprehension at the attitude that the Secretary of State is adopting to Shotton. He is setting about creating two nations industrially and economically. We find his policies unacceptable and we shall express our disgust with them in the Division Lobbies tonight.

7.18 p.m.

The Minister of State, Department of Industry (Mr. Adam Butler): Thanks to your giving way to a request by the hon. Member for Flint, East (Mr. Jones), Mr. Speaker, we have had an opportunity today for a three-hour debate on the important matter of the future of Shotton. Many anxieties have, understandably, been expressed by hon. Members, on both sides, who have a real interest in steel making in their constituencies.
We thank you, Mr. Speaker, for your indulgence in allowing two contributions from hon. Members who feel strongly about the position of Corby. Corby has a relevance to our debate because what is happening to Shotton today is exactly what happened to Corby. In February the British Steel Corporation proposed consultations with the work force and the local management of Corby, but did we have a debate then? No, we did not. On 12 July a statement was put out by the BSC about Shotton, and the hon. Member for Flint, East suggested that that was done behind closed doors. That allegation does not stand up. A message was sent to local unions, proposing consultations about the future of Shotton—exactly the same procedure as that followed at Corby.
A debate of this sort produces colourful language, and we should excuse the hon. Member for Flint, East on that account because his anxieties are very deep. On the other hand, I am not sure whether a debate of this sort excuses the suggestion that the intention of the Government is, or that the likely outcome of their policies would be, the total rundown of steel making in this country. That is an unnecessary scare and does not contribute to a sensible discussion of the problems.
The history of the matter is well known. Over the past decade the British Steel Corporation has been bringing itself up to date with massive investment in new plant. The consequence of that investment, after a number of closures under the previous Labour Government, is that Shotton has become the last remaining open-hearth steelworks in Britain. Those steelworks have a limited life, and under the Labour Government BSC concluded that new steel-making investment at Shotton was not justified. It became a question not of whether closure would take place but when.
I do not accept what the hon. Member for Whitehaven (Dr. Cunningham) said, that the closure would not have taken place under the Labour Government. It was the imminence of an election that postponed the decision, and if that election had gone the other way I believe that the decision would have been the same.

Mr. Gerald Kaufman: I was the Minister responsible


for the steel industry prior to the election, and I should inform the hon. Gentleman that BSC came to the Labour Government to propose the closure of Shotton. We told the Corporation that it had made a pledge to which we would hold it and from which we would not allow it to depart. Therefore, there was no possible prospect that Shotton would close under the Labour Government in the way that it is now being allowed to close under this Government.

Mr. Butler: That was not made clear before the election and it is not clear from the letter sent by the chairman of BSC to Mr. Bill Sirs, general secretary of the Iron and Steel Trades Confederation in January 1979. That letter was made public and a copy sent to the then Secretary of State, and it stated that if the recession continued in the steel industry and the commissioning of the new plant at Ravenscraig raised serious problems for the loading of the heavy end at Shotton
 Clearly the British Steel Corporation will have to consider how this situation develops in future ".
That is a clear indication of the thinking of the British Steel Corporation at that time.

Mr. Varley: During the period prior to the general election Sir Charles Villiers came and asked to proceed with the closure of Shotton. I told him categorically that he had made a pledge that the position would not be reviewed within the five-year period until 1982 and that the Labour Government expected him to hold to that pledge. Will the hon. Gentleman accept that fact?

Mr. Butler: That explanation conflicts with the remarks of the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Varley) that have been quoted in the debate, when he said that the target for the British Steel Corporation was to break even during the current year. It is impossible to reconcile that, on the one hand, he had a target to which he wished to hold British Steel with, on the other, the fact that he was not prepared to authorise the action that might make that possible. We are left to conclude that the target was meaningless. That is typical of the financial management of the economy by the previous Administration.
I should like to deal quickly with competitiveness. My right hon. Friend referred specifically to that in his closing remarks. If the steel industry does not become competitive, if it cannot make itself efficient, and it is not able to meet the requirements of industry in this country and overseas, jobs are at risk in the future.
The hon. Member for Flint, East referred to the flood of imports of cars. There may be many reasons why foreign cars are bought in this country but one factor is that the steel that is provided to British Leyland and other car manufacturers is not at the same price as that which is obtained overseas. I have visited several shipyards in the last few weeks, and I was told that steel can be bought at £20 per ton cheaper from overseas than from BSC. That is why it is essential that the industry should be able to compete.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Osborn) referred to the productivity of our industry compared with the Japanese steel industry. He quoted some alarming figures when he said that our productivity was a much as one-tenth or even one-fifteenth of Japan's. If the Commission is used as a source of information on these matters, we discover that our productivity is estimated to be about one-half of Germany's
These matters should be put right. In the downside end of Shotton there is what is described as the premier coatings complex in Europe. Investment to the tune of £44 million has been made. That complex must be served with its raw material, its steel, at the best price. That should come not from old plant at Shotton but, principally, from Ravenscraig and one or two other steel mills.
The question of who is responsible, the Government or BSC, has been discussed. The hon. Member for Wrexham (Mr. Ellis) mentioned "the capriciousness of political intervention, and we thought that he was on our side. He nearly was—political intervention is capricious. We are determined that the managements of the nationalised industries shall manage their industries. There has been too much interference, and that is why we repeat that the decision is for the management of whatever corporation it may be.

Mr. Ogden: Mr. Ogden rose—

Mr. Butler: I have no time—I was given too little time to deal with the matter. Not only do Conservative Ministers agree with that proposal, but the Labour Government's proposal on the reports of the Select Committee on nationalised industries of 1977–78 in recommendation 7 was:
 The Secretary of State should take into account the need for the maximum productive efficiency in the Corporation when he comes to review the future of iron and steelmaking at Shotton.
The Minister did not reply that he would deal with the matter, but he said:
It will be for the Corporation to review the future of iron and steelmaking at Shotton.

Mr. Varley: Mr. Varley rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. If the hon. Member who is addressing the House does not give way the right hon. Gentleman must sit down.

Mr. Varley: The hon. Gentleman is quoting directly from a statement that I made. It is the tradition of the House that when a Minister quotes an hon. Member he should give way. The Labour Government was asking the BSC to hold to its pledge—not a Government pledge, but a BSC pledge.

Mr. Butler: I find it difficult to do other than read the statement again. It was the considered judgment of the previous Government in regard to the future of BSC that:
 It will be for the Corporation to review the future of iron and steelmaking at Shotton.
That is proof that the Labour Administration, whatever its representatives are saying now, believed that it was for the Corporation to make the commercial decisions about steel-making plants.
Anxieties have rightly been expressed about the social consequences of closure. More or less concurrently with the BSC statement on 12 July my noble Friend

the Minister of State put out a press release that the Government would actively consider what measures should be taken to help to create alternative employment in Shotton, if the closure went ahead. We have referred to the possibility of upgrading Shotton to a special development area. We shall examine that matter with care. We have referred to further factory building and a review of infrastructure priorities. We shall do all that we can to ease the consequences of closure, because the social responsibilities are those of the Government.

Reference has also been made to the special redundancy payments scheme. Of course money by itself is no recompense for the loss of jobs, but we believe that that scheme should be operated with its generous payments to try to help in the circumstances that exist. We differ from the Opposition in our approach to the creation of real jobs. Again and again the Labour Government showed that they were prepared to keep people in jobs which had become obsolete and to put taxpayers' money behind them.

As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry said, that taxpayers' money must come from individual taxpayers or from other profitable industries. Every time that one puts money into an obsolete industry, an industry which otherwise would close, one is putting at risk jobs in profitable companies. That is what we have to understand. The present Government have already made their views—

Mr. John Evans: Mr. John Evans (Newton) rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question, That the Question be now put, put and agreed to.

Question put accordingly, That this House do now adjourn:

The House divided: Ayes 261, Noes 315.

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY

[2ND ALLOTTED DAY]

Orders of the Day — PUBLIC SERVICES

7.40 p.m.

Mr. Speaker: Before calling the right hon. Gentleman to move the motion in the name of the Leader of the Opposition I want to explain to the House what will happen at 10 o'clock in the light of the business motion to which the House agreed earlier today. At 10 o'clock, if the debate on the Leader of the Opposition's motion is still in progress, I shall interrupt it and put the Question. When this has been disposed of, I shall call on the Financial Secretary formally to move his motion relating to the Defence and Civil estimates. As soon as he has done so, I shall call on the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Cook) to move the motion in his name, which I shall then put to the House in the form of a reduction to the sums set out in the Financial Secretary's motion. As soon as this has been disposed of, I shall put the main Question with, if necessary, a reduced sum. When this has been agreed to, I shall call upon the Financial Secretary to introduce the Appropriation Bill.

7.42 p.m.

Mr. Stanley Orme: I beg to move,
That this House declines to approve the Revised and Summer Supplementary Estimates 1979–80 which contain reductions in the Vote to Health and Personal Services, Housing and other public services and will result in a reduction in the standard of provision of these services, especially to those members of the community who need them most, and so will increase the divisions in society.
We have already heard today of the Government's reckless proposals for cuts in public expenditure affecting the regions, industry and employment. I now turn to a further list of public expenditure cuts which will attack the Welfare State and the social fabric of our society. We are today looking beyond the Supplementary Estimates which are before the House to the whole field of Government public expenditure cuts. In many instances, the proposals before us today are only the tip of the iceberg. As the Govern-

ment's measures unfold, it will be seen that millions of people—men, women and children—in most need will be most affected.
Why are we going through this exercise? It is for one reason and one reason only—that the Government are determined substantially to reduce taxation. The impact of much deeper cuts in public expenditure, together with the increase in VAT and 17½ per cent. inflation, will be felt throughout the country. The irony is that those who benefit most from tax reductions at the top end of the scale will do so at the expense of millions of people who will receive no benefit from the proposed tax reductions.
I want to deal with proposals and decisions already taken by so-called responsible organisations in response to the Government's measures. I am sure that most hon. Members will have seen the recent statement by the Association of County Councils on 10 July headed " Revolutionary ideas on how local authorities can save money ". I shall itemise some of its recommendations. On school meals, the association recommends the removal of the statutory obligation to provide a school meal of given nutritional level, which means that individual local authorities would have the freedom to decide whether or not to provide such a service.
On school milk, the association recommends the removal of the requirement to provide free milk for schoolchildren up to 7 years of age. It is also recommended that the provision of welfare services unded section 21 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 should be made discretionary.
On health liaison, the association recommends the removal of the statutory requirement for liaison bodies between local authorities and the National Health Service. On old people's homes, the recommendation is the removal of the prescription by the Government of pocket money allowances for old-age pensioners. Dealing with social workers, the association recommends the removal of the requirement for sick children's planning committees to prepare and submit to the Secretary of State plans for the provision of committee homes under the Children and Young Persons Act.
The final paragraph of the association's statement is headed " Fire Precautions ". It states:
 Postpone introduction of new regulations under the Fire Precautions Act 1971 affecting old people's homes. Postpone introduction of revised building regulations. Introduce powers to charge for fire certificates under the FP Act 1971; and for advice on fire precaution matters. Relax the present regulations governing fire precautions in listed buildings. Raise the hotel bed limit above which hotels are required to be subject to the fire precaution regulations.
All we need to do is to give old people boxes of matches. The Government should take action.
I turn to a more immediate matter. The Sussex county council had to consider the future of the Mabel Lister Home for the Elderly Blind in East Sussex. That closure was proposed as a means of cutting expenditure. I regret to say that the Sussex county council today decided to close this home for blind elderly people. I cannot express the contempt that I feel for that authority. Even Tory councillors in Brighton have been moved to express their anxiety about the proposal.
I shall move closer to my home environment in Lancashire. Yesterday I received a letter from my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) about cuts of £6·6 million on education and £1·25 million on social services by the Lancashire county council.
The leader of the Labour group, Louise Ellman, has written to my hon. Friend. She says that those proposals put in jeopardy the 180-place extension to the Blackburn technical college. The savings will mean a direct reduction in the number of school teachers. She says that the school meals service will be at risk and that children may be prevented from starting school until they have turned five years of age. A 24-place children's home for the Roman Road area which was in the building programme is now at risk. She asks whether the concessionary passes scheme will be withdrawn.
I turn to the problem of housing. If we had had a longer debate, my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) would have spoken. As my right hon. Friend has said in a note to me, some Tory councils propose to load most of the burden

on council house rents. He gives Birmingham as an example. In order to save £4½ milion this year, 160,000 tenants must pay rent increases of up to £2 a week. Any budget advantage, therefore, will go overnight. Other councils will cut jobs to save money.
In order to save £5 million in the next two years, Warwickshire will reduce employment by 950, including 200 teachers. Hampshire is freezing 1,000 jobs. In time that will lead to a deterioration in the education service, for example. Hereford and Worcester plan to save £2½ million this year by abandoning proper school meals and charging for the bussing of children.
I turn to the question of the National Health Service. The increase in VAT will result in a reduction in real terms of 3 per cent. on National Health Service expenditure. Inevitably that will lead to the closure of wards.

The Secretary of State for Social Services (Mr. Patrick Jenkin): Rubbish.

Mr. Orme: The right hon. Gentleman may say that, but what about the bone marrow transplant unit at Westminster hospital, which, we are told, is under the threat of closure because of the Government's proposals?
My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) asked the Secretary of State yesterday about the estimated effect on his Department's budget of the increase in VAT and the net increase in his Department's expenditure for the current year. The Secretray of State said that the Department's Vote would have to bear an additional cost of £45 million a year arising from the increased rates of VAT. There is to be no increase in the cash limits for that.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: I said " Rubbish " when the right hon. Gentleman said that this was equivalent to a 3 per cent. cut. He has now quoted the figure that I gave to his hon. Friend—£35 million to £40 million. How does he estimate that that is anywhere near 3 per cent.?

Mr. Orme: That is one aspect of the Government's cuts. I shall come to the others later. The sum of £45 million is substantial.
Of course, there has already been widespread concern from many responsible


people and organisations, and the personal social services council, a Government independent advisory body, has made known its fears on the proposed cuts in personal social services. Two paragraphs of its statement read:

" (a) The personal social services are already under strain as a result of the growing needs of some client groups (notably, the more frail elderly people over 75 years of age). Any reduction in the scale of other services is likely to increase the need for social services support.
(b) It may be an illusion that large savings can be made by cutting back on residential forms of care. But there will always be an inescapable need for residential care, and some groups in need of such care are even now unable to receive it for want of adequate facilities."

This emphasises that in these types of areas one cannot make massive cuts without removing both amenities and facilities. We have seen already with what alacrity some Conservative-controlled authorities have run for the axe. Of course, during the coming autumn and winter, Labour authorities will be facing a terrible dilemma when they try to defend the vital services.
One can understand the anger expressed by members of the Sheffield city council the other day, however impractical their suggestions. In a city such as Sheffield, which has spent a lifetime building a welfare structure that is second to none, it is a terrible experience to see it dashed to the ground.
I should like to mention the area health authorities and the struggle that they will face because of the 17½ per cent. rate of inflation and the VAT increase.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: On the question of Sheffield, the right hon. Gentleman must know that was the subject of a pure propaganda exercise. Both my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary and I were told categorically by Councillor David Blunkett, a remarkable young man, who is chairman of the Sheffield social services committee, that nothing of the sort was going to happen.

Mr. Orme: I do not know whether the Secretary of State saw the statement in The Guardian today from Councillor Blunkett, which was somewhat different from what the Secretary of State is saying. Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the

House tonight that Sheffield will be free of these pressures and cuts?

Mr. Martin Flannery: I was appalled at what the Secretary of State said. The reality in Sheffield is that we are deeply worried about practically everything that the Tories are doing. Their assault on the services in any major city will afflict that city. I cannot agree about Councillor Blunkett. He is a valiant struggler. He is blind and he toils mightily for everyone who is dispossessed. I cannot believe what the Secretary of State said, and I take what my right hon. Friend the Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) said as being correct.

Mr. Orme: I wish to say a brief word about the area health authorities and the struggle that they will face in the coming months. Mr. Ray Batman, the Leeds area treasurer, has said that the increases will add £1 million to his city's allocation just to maintain services. He says that they are in serious trouble. I could give other examples from South Glamorgan, London and elsewhere. These are only some of the problems which will multiply as the Government's measures unfold.
I want to draw attention particularly to the effect of the Government's measures on the disabled, and not least the disabled blind. I refer to the brutal closure of the home in Sussex and the possible amendment of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act. I know that my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris), who was the Minister responsible for the disabled in the previous Administration, is taking a keen interest in this matter. He will be discussing the matter at a later date.
We have been told, not least today, that substantial tax cuts and the free run of market forces is the answer to the nation's problems. Dramatic cuts in taxation for the very rich do not, however, provide a health centre, an old people's home, a nursery school or housing for those in need. The people who will benefit from those tax cuts will not therefore be spending their money on providing these facilities in the inner city areas such as London, Manchester, Liverpool and Salford, when three-quarters of our population lives.
Likewise, market forces will only denude both industrial and crucial social urban areas of our society. We have only to look at the United States, with all its wealth, where as yet a health service under which every person has the right to equal treatment has not been created. With all its affluence the United States has not eradicated its city problems, and did not prevent New York from going bankrupt for the lack of public expenditure.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: Will the right hon. Gentleman repeat that last sentence? Did he say that it went bankrupt for lack of public expenditure?

Mr. Orme: Yes. The city of New York went to the central Administration for Government support because it could not pay the wages of its employees.

Mr. Jenkin: It was overspending.

Mr. Orme: I wish to refer here to an anecdotal remark—which I understand to be correct—by the Secretary of State for Industry, as he now is, when he gave evidence to the Royal Commission on the National Health Service. In his evidence he returned to his favourite philosophy about market forces. I understand that he was asked by the Commission what he meant by market forces, and how they would operate within the Health Service, and that the right hon. Gentleman replied that he would like to see a hospital with a number of empty beds competing with another hospital that also had empty beds. That is the philosophy of the madhouse. It does not provide more facilities.
I come now to the Secretary of State. He cuts a pathetic figure today. For years I heard him extolling how he wanted the Health Service improved, compaigning on child benefits and putting pressure on the Government at that time for increased public expenditure. Yet what has happened? The Cabinet steamroller has run over him and his liberal image has been obliterated by the Government's policies. The right hon. Gentleman owes the House an explanation for his U-turn.
How do we react to these proposals? The Labour Party will not stand idly by and watch the Welfare State be dismantled. We shall fight the proposals by every legitimate means at our disposal. My party has organised a campaign

through the national executive for this autumn and winter. The TUC has done the same. I am sure that my right hon. and hon. Friends will want to throw their weight behind these campaigns.

Mr. David Ennals: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the campaign will not just be a Labour Party campaign? Does he agree that people who thought that they would get something different from the Conservative Government will join this campaign? These are the people who genuinely believe in the Welfare State.

Mr. Orme: I could not agree more with my right hon. Friend. We have to convince those who were kidded by the Government into voting Conservative because they thought they would get more money in their pockets to join us in this struggle. They will see around them hospitals with closing wards, the closure of old people's homes and an absence of education facilities for their children. All this will happen in the most vulnerable areas of our society. I hope, therefore, that the campaign and the argument that we will carry to the people will not be too late to protect some of the services in the Welfare State that we fought for a generation to create, which we shall now defend, and, I hope, eventually improve when we return to office.

8.8 p.m.

Mr. Sydney Chapman: You will know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I had the great privilege of sitting in the last Parliament but two, although it seems that that was only just over five years ago. On that occasion I had the privilege of taking over the constituency of the then Sir Edward Boyle. Unkind boundary commissioners conspired with ungrateful electors to unseat me some years ago, but I find myself now in an equally privileged position in representing the constituents of Chipping Barnet, and I feel doubly privileged in succeeding the late Mr. Reginald Maudling.
This is not a maiden speech, and I suppose that I cannot call it a second maiden speech. I suppose that, to use the current Skylab jargon, this is a reentry attempt. I am sure that the House will forgive me if I pause to say on behalf of my constituents of all parties how


much they appreciated the eulogies by hon. Members on both sides about my distinguished predecessor.
Reggie Maudling represented the constituents of Barnet for almost 30 years. He held many of the great offices of State and I think that all who knew him, and certainly my constituents and myself, will always remember him with affection and respect.
Perhaps I may begin on a harmonious note by saying what a great pleasure and privilege it is to follow the right hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme). I tried to follow his oratorical flights of fancy, which I fear I shall be unable to match. Instead I shall attempt to depict the way in which the majority—I believe the vast majority—of my constituents see the current position on public expenditure.
In the last year of the previous Conservative Government total public expenditure, as defined by the Government's White Papers, was no less than £28,000 million, but in the five years following, up to the last year of the Labour Government, 1978–79, that figure rocketed to nearly £70,000 million, an increase in money terms of about 170 per cent. Of course, at constant prices, or in real terms, the figure was far less, but I calculate from the previous Government's White Paper published in January that the real increase in public expenditure was about 10 per cent.
The truth is that our taxpayers and ratepayers have been asked over the past quinquennium to pay more and more for what they believe, rightly or wrongly, to have been less and less, and this in a period when there has been not only record inflation but record unemployment, record debt and, if I may say so, record disillusionment.
There are many who feel that those rocketing figures cannot go on. I do not believe—I say this with the greatest sincerity that I can muster—that my constituents or the British people generally would object to paying higher taxes if they felt that the funds thus accummulated were alleviating some of the social problems which the country faces. If all the money spent had been reducing homelessness and getting rid of squatting, if the health services had improved and

the queues for operations had shortened, few people would object to having to pay higher taxes.
In fact, experience has been to the contrary, and taxpayers feel that they have been taken for a ride, not getting value for money. Although they do not believe that there is massive waste throughout every Government Department, they know that there is waste, that there is overmanning, and our public services, they believe, could be organised more efficiently. People have come to the view that if it be true that more and more money being allocated does not bring better services, a slight reduction in resources will not damage those services and, indeed, could improve them.
That brings me to my second point. Although one listens to him with great respect, the impression created by the right hon. Member for Salford, West is that the Government are cutting public expenditure this year. In fact, they are increasing public expenditure. According to the Budget forecasts, the money being devoted to public expenditure this year is £11,000 million more than last year. I am taking the figure of estimated outturn in the latest Treasury forecast.
Again, that is in money terms, but it is a 17 per cent. increase. The right hon. Gentleman talks of a 17 per cent. inflation rate, so it is not a massive cut. If anything, it is a very slight cut, and it may indeed be no cut at all. But in real terms, from the orginal pre-Budget forecast, it is a cut of 3 per cent. I think that it is £2½ billion out of the total of £78 billion.
I mention those figures merely to show the scale of the cutback—not the cut-down—in the increase of Government expenditure. I accept those figures, and I do not believe that anyone can deduce from them that the Government are being stingy, that they are cutting back unnecessarily, and that they will hit the very people who most need help and cannot help themselves.

Mr. Orme: In that case, why are local authorities, hospital authorities and all manner of others now having to take decisions on quite drastic cuts? Why are we threatened with teacher unemployment and why are homes being closed if there are no cuts?

Mr. Chapman: I shall deal with that. Obviously, the right hon. Gentleman is slightly ahead of me. Of course, the decision to cut back the increase in public expenditure by 3 per cent.—in other words, so that it rises by only 17 per cent. rather than 20 per cent.—means that certain unpopular decisions have to be made. My party put these points fairly and squarely before the electorate. [HON. MEMBERS: " No."] I believe that it did, and we are entitled to say that we are doing what we said we would do.

Mr. Ennals: Can the hon. Gentleman produce the election addresses of any of his hon. Friends which said that they proposed to close old people's homes or to double VAT?

Mr. Chapman: I cannot, and the right hon. Gentleman knows that I cannot, but even if we did not put that in our election addresses—I certainly did not—the right hon. Gentleman knows very well that, for example, neither he nor his right hon. and hon. Friends, before they came to power in 1974, said that they would increase the rate of direct taxation.

Mr. Ennals: We did.

Mr. Chapman: With great respect to the right hon. Gentleman, if we are to start horse-trading in what we are all supposed to have said or not said, we shall not get very far. In all sincerity, I say that we laid on the table exactly the policies that we would adopt.
But even assuming that there are to be sizeable cuts in public spending, this is not something peculiar to the present Conservative Government. It happened under the Labour Government. I do not doubt that when they came to power in February and October 1974 the Labour Government announced that they would increase public expenditure, but the truth is that in two successive years they reduced it. I remind right hon. and hon. Gentlemen that the real cut in public spending by their Government in 1976–77 on 1975–76 was no less than 3 per cent.—about the same as we forecast cutting it this year—and in the following year, 1977–78 on 1976–77, it was over 4·8 per cent. So even if right hon. and hon. Members want to level the charge at us that we are cutting public expenditure, the right hon. Member for Salford, West should be reminded that this was some-

thing which his own party and Government were responsible for when they were last in charge of our affairs.
The right hon. Gentleman has spoken about our health and social services, and he is known to have specialised in that area as a Minister in the Labour Government. My professions—not that I need to declare them—are perhaps almost as unpopular as the profession of politician. I was an architect and town planner. In fact, before I came into the House I defined my station in life as a non-practising architect, a would-be planner and a has-been politician.
I have, however, taken a particular interest in housing. The Labour Government actually cut the rate of spending on housing in real terms when they were in power. I need only remind the Opposition that in the three years 1974–75 to 1977–78 there were reductions of 11 per cent., 1 per cent. and 10 per cent., respectively.
The short point is that we intend to make what we believe to be modest cuts and modest reallocations of resources. We consider that we are entitled to do that because we have had a mandate from the majority of the electorate, or a majority of the electors under our present electoral system. We have been open about it. In our view, the making of the cuts which we propose in certain spheres does not mean that the quality of those services will in any way decline, and I do not believe that it will.
The Opposition have raised emotions in this debate, and I do not complain about that, but the House and the nation are entitled to a less emotional, less distorted and more objective excursus on the public service expenditure figures. The overwhelming majority of my constituents and the majority of the British people will support the Government's economic policies and their economic strategy because they are fed up with the profligacy that has been taking place over the past five years. They want to see the Government showing some semblance of financial prudency.

8.20 p.m.

Mr. David Ennals: I am not certain whether the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Chapman)—I think that we welcome him back to the House—was chiding the previous


Labour Government for having greatly increased public expenditure or for having greatly reduced it.
I shall concentrate on personal social services, especially on the problems of the aged. During the period of office of the Labour Government expenditure on personal social services increased in real terms by 30 per cent., an average of 6 per cent. a year. That meant for our steadily ageing population an extra 150,000 home helps, a 50 per cent. increase in meals on wheels—the vast majority for the elderly—20,000 more residential places for the elderly and 30,000 extra day care places. I accept that progress was too slow. No one on the Labour Benches who believes in public expenditure doubts that. However, every year we were moving forward.
We now have a Government who are dedicated to cuts in public expenditure. Our fear is that even the modest progress achieved over the years of the Labour Government is now ended. I shall be interested to hear what the Secretary of State has to say when he replies. When I was Secretary of State I took a great deal of stick from the right hon. Gentleman over three years for not having spent more on this, that or the other or for not having done more in various directions and for not properly looking after various needs.
Yesterday the president of the British Association of Social Workers said that if only half of this year's saving of £300 million were to be produced by social services, there would need to be a reduction of over one sixth in social service expenditure. He said that that would mean 10,000 children having to leave children's homes, 20,000 people having to leave local authority accommodation, 100,000 being deprived of home helps and more than 35,000 being deprived of anything up to three meals a week. We hope that the social service cuts will be only a small part of the total cuts, but my right hon. Friend the Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) has been quoting the views that have been advanced by the Association of County Councils, its spokesman being Mr. Owen Coutts, the chairman of the finance committee.
It appears that Mr. Coutts is brimming with ideas that will lead to dramatic say-

ings in our social services. He is a man of great experience. He was a leader of the Norfolk county council, which has about the lowest social service expenditure per head of the population of any county council. He stood as the Tory candidate for Norwich, South, and fortunately he did not manage to win. My hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Garrett) retained the seat.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Salford, West has referred to some of Mr. Coutts' bright proposals. I shall mention one or two others—for example, scrapping free school meals in infant schools, reducing the nutritional value of meals and ending the obligation to provide school meals, raising the school starting age from five years to six years and ending the obligation to provide free transport to schools for those living two or three miles away from schools.
That is a plan for the destruction of social services as we have seen them, as we have fought for them and as we have created them. Apart from the ideas that I have mentioned, Mr. Coutts is still brimming with ideas, although he did not mention them in his election address. They include taking away the pocket money of the elderly in local authority old people's homes. Can anyone think of anything more disgraceful than that? That was not in his election address. The proposals that the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 should no longer affect local authorities and that the appointment of safety representatives should no longer be mandatory similarly did not feature in his election address.
Mr. Coutts also wants to take the guts out of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970. As I have said, he brings to his task a wealth of experience and enthusiasm. He clearly enjoys the task that the Secretary of State and his colleagues have set the local authorities.
It might have been thought that Mr. Coutts was the latest version of Count Dracula and that no one would take his ideas as more than a piece of macabre drama, until the chairman of the ACC, Mrs. Elizabeth Coker, said:
 I am confident we shall get some of these through.
I do not know who she thinks she will be fighting when she tries to get through some of these plans.
When the present Secretary of State was in opposition and I was Secretary of State we both believed that there was an important role in social services for voluntary organisations. During my period as Secretary of State the Labour Government greatly increased the funds available to assist voluntary organisations. As I understand it, the voluntary organisations are not prepared to take over the role that local authorities will not be able to fulfil and provide social services on the cheap. Their task is to supplement statutory services. That was made clear to me at the annual meeting of Age Concern. As I attended that meeting I could not hear the Secretary of State at the volunteer centre. However, I understand that the point was made clear to him, too.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: When speaking at the volunteer centre I quoted the words once used by the right hon. Gentleman, which were reported in the Municipal Journal three years ago. At that time he addressed local authorities and he urged them to use volunteers because
 pound for pound they are a better buy.
That is what the right hon. Gentleman said, in flat contradiction to what he has only recently told the House.

Mr. Ennals: I have always made it clear that there is a special role for voluntary organisations in pioneering initiatives. Three years ago I was talking about the development of group homes for the mentally sick and the mentally handicapped. In that sphere there is a great role for voluntary organisations. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not cut the funds available to voluntary organisations. There is a special role for voluntary organisations and volunteers and that is not to take the place of statutory services.

Mr. Cranley Onslow: I am glad to hear the right hon. Gentleman say that. Will he withdraw the imputation that voluntary organisations provide a service on the cheap? Is it not a fact that in many instances they do the same job better, more efficiently and with a greater dedication?

Mr. Ennals: I spent more time working in the voluntary organisations than being a Member of Parliament or a Minister. The voluntary organisations would not respond in an encouraging way to the

Minister if they thought that they must fill a gap because the Government decided to cut statutory services. The voluntary organisations will make their position clear to the Secretary of State.
The cuts in community care—if carried through as the Government clearly wish—will inevitably put increased burdens on the Health Service. Less residential and day care provision will make it more difficult for patients to be discharged from hospital. Cuts in personal social services will place an added burden on the Health Service authorities, which will not be able to discharge so many patients into the community. Those authorities are faced with heavy cuts. I have not seen the figure of £45 million that was given by the Minister. I am fascinated with his arithmetic. I shall table a question asking him to list the figures area by area and region by region.
Recently I spent a good deal of time talking with those involved in the regions and areas. I find the figure of £45 million unimpressive in view of the VAT increase, other Government measures and the decision to stand by the cash limits that were set when inflation was expected to be far lower. I do not believe that the health authorities will find that £45 million is the correct figure. My calculation is that the figure will be roughly £100 million. In some regions there will be no growth; in others there will be cuts.

Mr. Orme: The Minister mentioned £45 million. I recently spoke to the area health authority close to my constituency. I was told that the figure would be 3 per cent. on VAT and that with the other costs coming in this year there would be a reduction of about 7 per cent. Adding up the figures, that comes closer to the £100 million mentioned by my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Ennals: Clearly, we must press those matters very hard. I have enough experience in the Health Service to know that the Secretary of State must be honest and fair with the area and regional authorities. Sometimes they must take the rap. If there are to be closures of hospital wards, or beds, the area and the regional authorities must implement the decisions. It ill behoves a responsible Secretary of State not to take responsibility on behalf of the Government


and say that the Health Service authorities have been put into that position as a result of the decisions taken by the Chancellor in the Budget.
The Opposition made desperate attempts to exclude medical equipment from the VAT increase. We received no response. I hope that the Minister will be honest and say that the cuts will be made as a result of Government policy and that the country and the regional and area authorities may hear him speak on their behalf. I hope that there will be no complacency from him in recognising how many words he must swallow. In the first two or three months of his rule he will start a regime of cuts such as we never saw in the whole period of the Labour Government.

8.33 p.m.

Mr. Geoffrey Dickens: I joined the House of Commons a short while ago. I found that my motive for coming to Westminster was, according to Edmund Burke, that the only necessity for the triumph of evil was for good men to do nothing. I felt that I had to do something.
The more I listen to speeches from members of the Opposition, the more I clearly realise the evils of Socialism. Perhaps the Socialists do not mean to be evil. However, in the past few weeks I have heard nothing but ridicule, sneers and unworthy words about matters on which they had the opportunity to act for so many years but did nothing.
The right hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) referred to old-age pensions. The Conservative Party has no need to feel ashamed at what it did for old-age pensioners. Airey Neave introduced pensions for the over-80s. The Conservative Party introduced the six-monthly revision of pensions. The Tories introduced the Christmas bonus. The Labour Government took it away and the Conservatives reintroduced it, under pressure.
I do not feel able to sit and tolerate this sort of talk, Mr. Deputy Speaker, from the Labour Benches. My views are probably very different from those of my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench. I should like to see us stop the supply of free teeth, free glasses and free dental equipment. [Interruption.] I am

talking about pensioners, and for pensioners they are more or less free. I should like to get rid of rent rebates, rate rebates, free television in some areas, and bus passes in other areas, because elderly people are forced to tell somebody all their business in order to qualify for the gravy train, as some people call it. I realise that many old-age pensioners need this sort of support, but most of them would like to be independent of all these handouts. They would like instead to have a jolly good pension and not have to tell somebody all their business in order to qualify for handouts. It is very sad that they are placed in this position, and I criticise all previous Governments for the way in which we are moving in this respect.
I have been charged with the task of making an investigation into the cost of all this. It may not be quite as easy as it would seem from the way in which I put my argument to the House. I am sure that it would be costly to implement even with support from each side of the House, but it is worth considering, because we are getting to a state where we are destroying the character of the people of this country with measures of this sort.

Mr. Orme: I heard what the hon. Gentleman said about pensioners preferring to have a decent pension and wanting to get rid of the support services. When we were in office, we introduced the provision for the uprating of pensions in line with earnings or prices, whichever was the higher. The hon. Gentleman is a member of a party which intends to change that system of uprating, so that instead of the pensioners sharing in increased prosperity, they will be tied to the cost of living. What does he say about that?

Mr. Dickens: We made a pledge during the election campaign that we would not let the pensioners fall behind, and that is important. We shall see that through. Our vision for this country is to get productivity going again by having less taxation on companies and on persons. We want people to be able to work harder, get their bonuses and take their overtime payments, without having to pay such high taxation on them. Once the money is available, all sorts of things can be done. Labour Members are judging us on this very first Budget. I would say


to them " Be patient, my friends." When we come to the next general election, our vision will be seen to be coming through and people will see that, though they may have wondered at first, we have got it right after all.

Mr. Robin F. Cook: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I do not believe for a moment that the Budget will result in the expected leap forward in bonus earnings and increased productivity, but, assuming it did, there would then be an increase in the earnings of those at work, and at that point the measure proposed by the Secretary of State would mean that pensioners would fall behind those at work. The more money people earned in factories, the more the pensioners would fall behind, because the link would have been destroyed.

Mr. Dickens: That is typical of what I have to listen to from you fellows. There are so many possibilities open to us. We could increase the Christmas bonus. We could give the pensioners an immediate increase. [Interruption.] I am trying to explain our position to Labour Members when they ask me a question. We can do all sorts of thing, given the money with which to do them. At the moment we are trying to spend money in all sorts of directions without first earning that money. The whole thing is moving in the wrong direction.
I return to my former argument about the removal of handouts to pensioners. I wanted to say to you that there are many bureaucrats in local government offices, sitting behind desks with telephones, lights, accommodation and the rest—also inflation-proof pensions—giving pensioners the handouts that they could have had in the first place. That is where I would get some of the money, by making cuts in that direction. It may seem stupid to say that, but I shall produce a document, make a case and test the House later on.

Mr. Stephen Ross: If the hon. Member for Huddersfield West (Mr. Dickens) intends to persuade his party to take on the tax credit scheme which it seems to have abandoned, I am entirely with him. I suggest that that is where the hon. Gentleman should look. There is a full report on the working of

a tax credit scheme, under which he could do away with the 42 means-tested benefits if he really went into the matter.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill): Order. Before the hon. Member for Huddersfield, West (Mr. Dickens) recommences, may I just tell him that I am " you ", and that we are not chaps or fellows but hon. Members in this Chamber.

Mr. Dickens: I am much obliged, Mr. Deputy Speaker. When the Conservative Party stopped the supply of free school milk the reaction was " Thatcher the milk snatcher ". That was very unkind. What were we trying to do? We wanted to allow people to be responsible. The very hon. Members who are shouting at me now are those who would be prepared to drink 16 or 18 pints of beer at the weekend, but who would not buy their children half a pint of milk a day. That is the sort of society in which we live.
I want to make a plea on behalf of invalids. Many hon. Members will know that the invalid tricycle or car system is now being run down and that invalids receive £10 a week. I understand that that amount will be increased to £12 in November, through the Motability scheme, to help invalids acquire their vehicles.
Many hon. Members may not appreciate that at the age of 65 elderly people lose their vehicles and have to acquire a vehicle of their own, paying the full rate of VAT. They also have to pay for modifications, such as hand controls, and maintain the vehicles themselves. If I am incorrect, I hope that the Secretary of State will correct me when he replies to the debate. I make this special plea for invalids, particularly as the cost of petrol is rising rapidly.
I think that I have kept the House for long enough. The House has been good spirited, and I thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, very much indeed.

8.43 p.m.

Mr. Robin F. Cook: I am sorry that the hon. Member for Huddersfield, West (Mr. Dickens) has had to listen to so much evil in the few weeks that he has been with us. In response, I look forward with a sinking sense of depression to the fact that I


may have to spend four or five years listening to speeches by the hon. Member for Huddersfield, West.
It really is not good enough for him to enter special pleas for hard-up, disabled sections of the community when he is buttressing and supporting a Government who have penalised those groups, and when he is speaking in support of a Secretary of State for Social Services who has proposed to smash the link between pensions and the standard of living. It is mere cant to make special references in the context of that general background.
Having got that off my chest, I think that it would be churlish if I were to go any further. As late as last December, I was among those hon. Members who protested at the assumption that the House should be expected to accept and approve public expenditure without debate.
I congratulate my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench for having at least tabled a motion that at long last enables us to get back to the original function of a Supply day and to scrutinise the Estimates that are put before us before they are approved. I doubly congratulate my right hon. and hon. Friends, because they have tabled a motion that enables us to focus on the most significant factor of the Supplementary Estimates, namely, the damage that will be done to the disabled and the sick in our community.
It is particularly appropriate for myself that the House should be debating this matter tonight, because it was only today that the controlling Labour group on my regional council met and resolved that it would fight the proposed cuts in public expenditure that are advocated by the Conservatives. I hope that those Labour councillors succeed. I wish them every luck in their campaign to change the minds of Conservative Members. However, we must face the unpalatable truth that they may fail—that they may be obliged to carry through some of the painful decisions to which my right hon. Friends have referred, and that they as councillors, who in many cases have fought for decades to improve the social services in their area, may themselves

have to preside over the dismantling of them.
When we come to those decisions, it is not difficult to predict what projects will have to go. It will be those projects that come fresh to the budget, that require additional money and that have to fight with projects that are already established and funded.
I should like to share with the House information about three such projects that are proposed in my constituency over the next nine to 18 months. The first is an adult training centre for the mentally handicapped. Last year, the regional council was fortunate in that it was able to acquire new modern premises that had fallen vacant, for reasons to which I shall return, and which it bought in order to turn into a training centre for the mentally handicapped. The money has been put in the budget for the end of this year, and for the next financial year, to convert that building and to start the work. If the council has to reduce its social work budget, that is one project that will almost certainly go.
It is not as if the Government will say that there are enough places in the Lothians for mentally handicapped people to be trained. It is not as if they will say " There are too many places for the mentally handicapped in the Lothian region. That is why we must cut the number of places available." Indeed, it is impossible for them to say so, because guidelines are still extant from the Scottish Office to every social work authority, recommending the number of training places that they should have for the mentally handicapped. At present, the Lothian region is 50 per cent. below those guideline figures. If the Government had a streak of honesty in them, they would withdraw those guidelines now, because it is pure hypocrisy to leave those guidelines extant while one is cutting away the the money that local authorities need if they are to have a hope of meeting those guidelines.
There is another dimension to this illustration. I mentioned that these new modern premises had fallen vacant. In fact, they were the social club of my local football supporters, which had gone bust. The only other bidder on the market for the premises was a consortium of other


football supporters who wished to reopen the club under new management.
The logic of the Conservative proposition is that the Lothian region should not have bid for those premises, and should not have taken on an inescapable commitment to expand public expenditure by converting that building. It should not have irresponsibly crowded out the private sector, and should have left those premises to be taken over by the consortium of football supporters to be retained as a social club.
Here we come to the nub of the argument. The net result would be that instead of having an adult training centre for the mentally handicapped in my constituency, I would have yet another beer bar. I have nothing against beer bars—I have even been known to spend some time in them—but I can clearly see the social damage that is done by preventing a handicapped centre opening in my constituency. It beggars my comprehension how any hon. Member can see how, in some mystical, magical way, by leaving those premises in the private sector and retaining them as a social club, the Lothian region will be contributing towards the economic recovery of Great Britain.

Mr. Barry Henderson: The hon. Gentleman referred to hypocrisy and the fact that the Lothian region was 50 per cent. below the recommended guidelines for mentally handicapped training places. However, is it not a fact that that situation arose after a substantial period of Labour control of the Lothian region and five years of Labour Government?

Mr. Cook: Lothian region took over from Edinburgh town council, and the first time—in about 200 years—that Edinburgh town council obtained a Labour social work authority was in 1974 when it passed on to Lothian region. That fact remains unpalatable to the Edinburgh Conservative Party.
The hon. Member for Fife, East (Mr. Henderson), perhaps unfortunately, has been out of the House for the past five years. He may not be aware that some of the policies pursued by the previous Labour Government did not command the unanimous support of Labour Back Benchers. I accept that some Labour Members made criticisms, but the

Lothian region had to operate within tight capital budgets.
The fact remains that the council has purchased a building. If it does not receive money to staff the building, it will stand empty. I can think of nothing more criminal than that, despite a clear clamant need, we should let a building stand empty for lack of the resources to staff it and to bring it into use for the need for which it was originally acquired.
I wish to refer more briefly to two other projects, both of which affect the elderly. I represent an inner city area and, like other hon. Members who represent such areas. I have a large number of elderly electors. More than one-quarter of them are over retirement age, and in some areas the proportion rises to more than one half. In response to that clear clamant need, Lothian region has, in its budget for this year, provided for an alarm system that would enable 200 of my elderly constituents to be connected to a mobile warden who could be summoned in an emergency.
That essential service—a service that might save lives—is one of the projects that will almost certainly go if they are obliged to meet the guidelines sent out by the Scottish Office because it is a new project, which requires additional finance. It is not one of the established projects. They cannot be shut down in order to make way for it. The Scottish Office is providing for a cut of £15 million in social work expenditure in Scotland, and that is why the alarm system project will have to go. Similarly, another project that would have to go is the expanded provision, included in the budget, for another £1½ million expenditure on the home help service.
I sometimes get the impression that Conservative Members are incapable of grasping that one of the reasons why public expenditure rises—and why it has to rise—is the sheer inescapable pressure of demographic change. Every year, there is another 1 per cent. of the population that is over 65 years of age. Every year, the proportion of the population that is over 75—those who are most in need—increases by more than 2 per cent. In other words, unless we increase the personal services to the elderly by more than 2 per cent. a year in real terms, we fall behind every year.
That is why in my constituency there are already more people over 75 who are not receiving home helps than ever before. There are more people over 75 who have a home help on only two days instead of five days. That trend will accelerate as the number of those over 75 increases and the money available for home helps is cut back.
It is not enough to urge, as the hon. Member for Huddersfield, West urged, that this is a necessary period of sacrifice in order to achieve growth and a spurt in economic activity, at the end of which we will be able to spend public money and increase public expenditure.
It is not enough for two reasons. I see nothing in these cuts that leads me to believe that that increase in economic activity will take place. The one clear effect of the Budget, as admitted by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, is that there will be a reduction in net economic activity in Britain. There will be a drop in economic output.
It is not enough, for another reason that has been hinted at. It will be too late, three or four years from now, to open that centre for the mentally handicapped. Many children will have left school and missed that vital period in their late teens when they could have had the opportunity of training to play a constructive part in the community. It will be too late for my constituents who are over 75. Many of them will have died in three or four years' time. They may die alone, unable to summon help because of the cuts that will be forced on the social services.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: The hon. Gentleman is presenting an excellent case not only for elderly constituents in Edinburgh but for those who suffer from mental handicap. Will he address his mind to those areas of public expenditure where savings could be made so that the additional sums that he and I want to be spent on the elderly and mentally handicapped can be found from existing or reduced budgets?

Mr. Cook: I am delighted by the intervention of the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton). I was about to come to an area in which I should welcome cuts. I am not sure that the

hon. Gentleman will agree, but that will relieve me of the embarrassment of having him in agreement with me.

Mr. Winterton: I limit that agreement to social services.

Mr. Cook: There is an area of public expenditure that has not been asked to make the sacrifices required of the elderly and mentally handicapped, and that is the Defence Vote. There is a motion on the Order Paper in my name and the names of some of my colleagues on that issue. The reason why we have tabled that motion is that the Treasury, while committing itself to expenditure cuts that will affect the sick, elderly and mentally handicapped, has committed itself to increasing expenditure on the Defence Vote. Even with the half-crazed economic logic of the Treasury, that contrast is not safe.
We are told that public expenditure must be decreased because it is crowding out the private sector. Home helps and training places for the handicapped do not required skilled engineers, graduate physicists or sophisticated technological equipment. Arms procurement does. One of the reasons why we have so long campaigned to restrain arms procurement is precisely that it competes with other forms of investment in manufacturing industry. When confronted with the one form of public expenditure that may crowd out the private sector, the Government have acted by proposing a 3 per cent. increase. We have yet to see where that will appear and are therefore obliged to raise our motion against the Supply Estimates rather than the Supplementary Estimates, which have not yet been presented by the Ministry of Defence. I accept that that is unsatisfactory.
It is important at an early stage in this Parliament that we have an opportunity to record our outrage at a proposal that will cut expenditure for the sick, weak and those who are unable to defend themselves whilst at the same time providing for increases in arms procurement. I hope that many hon. Members will take the opportunity to record their outrage in the Division Lobbies tonight.

8.58 p.m.

Mr. Cranley Onslow: I hope that the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Cook) will not mind if I say


that there was much in his speech that was predictable. The most predictable part was the note that he struck on defence, and I shall return to that later.

Mr. Flannery: The hon. Gentleman's speech is predictable as well.

Mr. Onslow: I am glad to hear the mastermind second-guessing me. I had not intended to speak in the debate until I heard the speech of the previous Secretary of State, which was not wholly predictable. I am delighted to see that he is returning to the Chamber. To judge from what he said, he expected the House to take it from him that he had handed over or had shot from under him a National Health Service that was in perfect running order. I did not detect any note of self-criticism in the right hon. Gentleman's remarks or any recognition of the enormous burdens which built up in the Health Service during his tenure of office. I did not detect any note of modesty—

Mr. Ennals: Tomorrow we shall have an opportunity to consider the Health Service because that is when the Royal Commission reports. The hon. Member surely realises that our Labour Government inherited a reorganisation which riddled the Health Service with the bureaucracy with which we have had to deal ever since.

Mr. Onslow: The right hon. Member had five years in which to deal with it, but he did not do so. That lack of responsibility is much of the cause of our troubles today. We do not need a Royal Commission to remind us that the chairman of my local area health authority was moved to write to the Secretary of State before the last election, and say that he could scarcely keep the Health Service going in his area because of lack of funds. We do not need the Royal Commission to tell us of the difficulties in recruiting nurses. These difficulties have become so acute that many wards cannot be staffed to adequate standards.

Mr. Ennals: The hon. Member must know that in the five years of the Labour Government there was an increase each year in the numbers of doctors and nurses, and over the whole period there was an increase in the number of patients dealt with in hospitals, in the community and in day care. Far too much propa-

ganda has been given to the difficulties and weaknesses of the Health Service. It is time some was given to its achievements.

Mr. Onslow: The right hon. Member spends all his time trying to justify himself just as hard as he can. If he is right in what he says why is the Health Service in such a mess? Has some mysterious event occurred since 3 May to bring this about? Is the right hon. Member really saying that the NHS has actually improved during the past five years?

Mr. Ennals: In many ways, yes.

Mr. Onslow: The right hon. Member says that it has, in many ways. Let me tell him some ways in which it has not. I am sorry that the right hon. Member does not like what I am saying but I intend to make my speech. It is time there was an attack on the legacy of inefficiency, complacency and self-satisfaction that form the root of the problem that we face today.
Let me give one example. There is a hospital serving my constituency which treats mentally handicapped people. For three years admissions to that hospital have been virtually controlled by a trade union. Does the right hon. Member think that is a good legacy? One of the reasons for this is that the hospital load has increased because the London boroughs, which are responsible for many of the patients, will not make the provision that would enable them to be released. That has been going on for five years. Meanwhile, there is case after case of acute family agony. The right hon. Member and his hon. Friends know all about this—I have been writing to them about it for years. This is an area in which action should have been taken long ago.
In another hospital in my constituency the union relations are such that patients' relatives are deeply worried about the standard of care that is provided. That, too, has been building up for five years. This is the climate that has been created by the right hon. Gentleman and his friends. The legacy that they have left us is one of very poor morale and they cannot disclaim responsibility for it. They must accept that this kind of problem must be put right. We must have a new motivation between the community


and the Health Service. Teachers must encourage girls to take up nursing.

Mr. Flannery: The hon. Gentleman has pointed out the ills of the Health Service. Many of those which are due to the lack of money are true. However, do we assume that the Tory Party will rectify those ills and pour money into the Health Service?

Mr. Onslow: Of course the hon. Gentleman always invites us to agree to something helpful like that. Is he suggesting that as a teacher he encouraged girls to go into nursing. Not a bit of it. His presence surely acted as a discouragement. If he or a community or a country live beyond their means there comes a point when there is no way out of it. That is the point and the cuts are a consequence of our inheritance of the policies of the previous Government. The coat has to be cut according to the cloth.

Mr. Flannery: Hypocrisy.

Mr. Onslow: That is not hypocrisy. The system must be brought back to serve the public and bureaucracy which perpetuates itself must be ended. That is the sort of bureaucracy which soaks up nurses who want to be nurses and turns them into administrators so that they cannot care for patients. Doctors were allowed to build up small empires—for example, the X-ray evaluation unit at Kings College Hospital on which about £500,000 was spent unnecessarily under the Labour Government. We want a Health Service that serves the public. We need to increase productivity, to get nurses on the wards and out of offices. The lawyers in the county councils should be made to understand that when they are dealing with voluntary bodies they should help them and not get in their way by inserting daft clauses in tenancy agreements to provide that the windows will be washed every two months when the aim is to set up a home for mentally-handicapped adults. There must be some vision about the matter. It may be necessary to cut some of the cherished projects of Labour Members like the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery), our teaching friend—to cut out some of the bad teaching.
My words seem to be too strong for the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central, who is leaving the Chamber.
I should like to follow up the point about defence. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will hear my plea. There are many types of national defence, not just the uniformed forces, the Armed Services and the police. There are protective entities upon which our society depends. One protection we need is against drug smuggling. I am anxious that the preventive side of the Customs and Excise service which protects the country from the danger of smuggled drugs should continue. I am sure that my right hon. Friend is aware what a burden smuggled drugs place on the services for which he is responsible and that it is in the interests of national defence that drug smuggling should be prosecuted most vigorously.
I fear that the reaction of the unions within the Customs and Excise may be such that the Government will not be allowed to maintain as high a defence as is needed against smuggled drugs. For some doctrinaire reason the unions are insisting that cuts should be made across the board. I hope that the unions are suitably ashamed of themselves and I hope that my right hon. Friend will impress upon his colleagues in the Treasury and the Home Office the great importance that I am sure he attaches to ensuring that no flood of drugs comes into the country for the reasons that I have described.

9.10 p.m.

Mr. Jack Ashley: We have just been treated to an interesting speech by the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow). He was going great guns until he was challenged by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) to tell the House whether the Tory Government proposed to rectify the deficiencies in hard cash. The hon. Gentleman did not rise to that occasion in the same eloquent way as he delivered the rest of his speech.
It is all very well to use high-sounding generalisations about the need for vision and to call for a little humility from my right hon. Friend the former Secretary of State for Social Services, but the basic question relates to the amount of cash


that the Government intend to allocate to those in need.
Ministers make great play about keeping their manifesto commitments to cut public expenditure, but they are being highly and misleadingly selective. Some of their manifesto commitments are being flagrantly disregarded and some solemn promises are being irresponsibly broken by virtue of the Government's public expenditure policy.
We are seeing a double-barrelled shotgun attack by the Government involving specific public expenditure cuts, some of which are disguised under the euphemism of " cash limits ". This attack is blasting the fragile hopes and inadequate living standards of the most vulnerable sections of our society. The Government are undermining provision for the mentally and physically handicapped. They are putting into reverse the powerful engine for progress, the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act, and eroding the basic fabric of the Welfare State.
It is, I suppose, inevitable that a Government seeking to placate wealthy supporters by allocating the largest tax concessions to the wealthiest will inject a new venom into the old concept of class war. Naturally, such a Government will disregard the plight of the underprivileged. What is harder to take—and this has happened—is the fact that Ministers constantly state that party politics should not be allowed to creep into the subject of disablement. I have always said that, and meant it, and that argument applies to members of the all-party group on disablement. In that group we have managed to maintain this admirable principle as well as to adumbrate it.
Everything has now changed. Disabled people are directly and devastatingly affected by the Government's cuts, though I concede that some local authorities have not yet reached final decisions about-precisely where the cuts should fall. If we examine the problems that beset the mentally handicapped and the mentally ill, we quickly conclude that the present provision is so threadbare, pathetic and inadequate that it constitutes a national scandal. I am referring to an unfashionable and unpopular section of our society. Apart from dedicated relatives and some professional workers, this is the unloved section of our society.
Nowhere do society's crocodile tears apply more aptly than they do to the mentally ill and mentally handicapped. Even the children are not excepted from this process. Mentally handicapped children are being denied the real concern of society. Over 5,000 mentally handicapped children are institutionalised in hospitals. They are children who should not be in hospital.
These deplorable facts have been the subject of debates in this House on a number of occasions, and they have been detailed in Maureen Oswin's splendid book and in many reports. People concerned with the mentally handicapped know about them, but the House does not know as much as it should. There are hospitals for the mentally handicapped which have no paediatrician, no speech therapist and insufficent physiotherapists. These are the children who should be considered when we are talking about public expenditure cuts.
An hon. Member for the Conservative Benches suggested that there should not be too much emotion in the debate. That is fine. Instead, we should have some facts. The facts about these children, which have been chronicled, are that they suffer from sore eyes, runny ears, chronic catarrh, skin diseases, bad teeth, chronic stomach upsets and worms. These are the kinds of diseases that one thinks of as affecting children in the nineteenth century, but there are children suffering from these diseases in hospitals today.
I want to pay my tribute to the nurses and doctors in the good hospitals. There are, however, more than enough hospitals that are cause for deep public concern. Those children should not be in hospitals. They should be in the community, provided with care as well as treatment. As a result of the Government's action on public expenditure the pace of the exodus of children from old-fashioned and inadequate hospitals will be retarded. That is an unhappy word to describe an unhappy trend for mentally handicapped children.
It is fair to make the point that if the situation is so serious, why did the Labour Government not solve it? The Labour Government did not resolve the problems, but it did inject and invest more public expenditure into hosptals. I attacked savagely the former Secretary of State for Social Services, my right hon.


Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Ennals) on many occasions, but he fought for these children and for these people. More public expenditure was provided. What is now happening is the reversal of that process, possibly with the best of intentions. The aims are wrong. The methods are wrong. Mentally handicapped children will suffer. If children alone were affected, that would be a cause for deep concern, but the broad picture is even more disturbing.
Despite the so-called mandatory duty placed on local authorities to provide mental health services, including aftercare, no fewer than 41 authorities make no residential provision for mentally handicapped children. Two authorities make no provision for mentally handicapped adults, 28 authorities make no provision for mentally ill adults and 21 authorities have no adult training centres. Seventy-seven authorities make no daycare provision for mentally handicapped adults. I make no apology for inflicting those vital figures on the House. They have been compiled by MIND from the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy.
The figures are important, boring though figures usually are. They are testimony to the indifference, the failure and the neglect of successive Governments and local authorities and public opinion generally. They illustrate the derision with which many local authorities regard their duties under the Mental Health Act 1959, and they underline the need for urgent reform of the law.
Legal reform and compulsory enforcement of mandatory responsibilities are but empty shells without the financial stuffing of public expenditure. That is essential, and yet at a time when we should be injecting more financial resources into social services the Government insist on economies. That is a ruthless and unfeeling policy to pursue at this time.
If the picture is so bleak for mentally handicapped and mentally ill people, we must also consider the plight of the physically handicapped. There is patchy and kaleidoscopic implementation of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act. It is spotty and shifting as one local authority after another seeks to wriggle

out of its mandatory responsibilities. The Secretary of State should repudiate the proposals put to him by the Association of County Councils for section 2 of that Act to be made not mandatory but discretionary. He should suggest to the Treasury and his Department that the Government should have second thoughts about their policy.
I hope that the Secretary of State will allocate a set proportion of the rate support grant for mentally and physically handicapped people and for the old who are in need. I hope, too, that the Government will recognise that their respect for local government autonomy must be tempered by the knowledge that some local authorities seek to evade their responsibility to disabled people.
I trust that there will emerge from this debate a clearer understanding of the magnitude of the problems experienced by mentally and physically disabled people and that there will be a new determination in the House to avoid imposing burdens on those who are already broken by their disabilities.

9.23 p.m.

Mr. Andrew Bowden: The House always listens with respect to the right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley). I hope that he will forgive me, but I must take to task some of his colleagues who made comments earlier in the debate.
I apologise to the right hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) for not having heard his opening remarks, particularly as I intend to comment on what he said about the East Sussex county council.
It is sad that in such debates in the House both sides tend to give the impression that only they care about elderly people, about handicapped people, about the National Health Service and about our system of looking after those who are not as fortunate as the majority.
I believe that 100 per cent. of hon. Members genuinely care about people. They will express that care in different ways and show it in different ways. Not one of us would have had the temerity to stand for Parliament if he did not truly care about people and their problems.
We do not give the best impression of the House and of our parliamentary


system when we try to pretend that one side has a monopoly of caring, that one side has a monopoly of success and the other of failure. That is not true.
The political parties represented in the debate tonight have made great achievements over hundreds of years and it would be wiser for us to concentrate more on the way in which they have co-operated to overcome problems facing the elderly, the sick and the handicapped rather than always emphasising the divisions and failures of our political opponents.
I was sorry that the right hon. Member for Salford, West felt it necessary to select the East Sussex county council for attack when he dealt with the Mabel Lister home. On many occasions I have criticised the social services department of that county council. There have been a number of tragic cases in the county in the last few years. We shall never forget Maria Colwell who lived in my constituency or Stephen Menhenniet, and other tragic cases that have been directly related to the responsibilities of that social services department.
However, the department has fine achievements to its credit. The Mabel Lister home is not in my constituency, but in Lewes. It is a home for the visually handicapped. It has been under-occupied for a considerable period. The intention and policy of the council is to integrate the visually handicapped into existing homes. A final decision has not yet been made about the future of the Mabel Lister home.

Mr. Orme: I am reliably informed that the East Sussex county council at its full meeting today decided, on the recommendation of its social services department, to close the home. I secured that information from the Library which was in touch with the county council during its meeting this afternoon. I have a cutting from the local newspaper about the home. When the proposal to close it was made the director of social services said that he wanted rationalisation and perhaps to move people into other homes. But he also said that this was part of the cuts in public expenditure.

Mr. Bowden: I have to tell the House that the right hon. Member for Salford, West is better informed than I am about the decision that was made by the county

council today. I concede that point completely. There is, however, a strong argument for saying that where possible people with certain handicaps should be integrated into existing homes where those handicaps do not exist. The Mabel Lister home has been significantly under-occupied and under-used for a long time.
When an attack is made upon a county council and its social services department it is essential for the House to get the full perspective. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will have informed himself of these facts, but naturally he would not have used them during his speech. The East Sussex county council spends more per head of the population on social services than any other county council in England. Since 1974 its social services budget has increased, excluding provision for inflation, by 16·2 per cent. Not many county councils have been able to match that in the last five years.
There has been a substantial increase in the number of home helps. The county council has concentrated on more domiciliary help, on assistance to people in their own homes. Surely, that is a trend to be encouraged and welcomed, and I hope that other county councils will follow it.
The county council's social services department has pioneered some completely new schemes for home care, which is a major step forward. A large sum has been put aside to sponsor old people's homes run by voluntary organisations.
Among those facts is evidence of no mean achievements by the county's social services department over the past four or five years, and it is my duty to remind the House that these achievements have been brought about despite the appalling way in which the county was treated by the Labour Government in relation to the rate support grant. When I look back at the cynical removal of resources and funds from East Sussex to other parts of the country, purely for political reasons, I sometimes feel a little bitter at the attacks from the right hon. Member for Salford, West and his hon. Friends.
I regret that the former Secretary of State for Social Services, the right hon. Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Ennals), is not now in the Chamber for I could not help feeling that his speech was a self-justification of his actions and record


as Secretary of State. I wanted to remind him that some two years ago, when Secretary of State, he wrote to me admitting that the Brighton health district was not receiving its fair share of resources in relation to its problems, in relation to the large number of retired people living in Brighton. Of my 65,000 constituents more than one-third—23,000—are of retired age. Yet nothing happened during those two years, despite the right hon. Gentleman's written admission to me. Nothing was done to allocate additional resources to the Brighton area.
I hope that my right hon. Friend the present Secretary of State will take a close look at that correspondence and ensure that Brighton health district receives its fair share in the years ahead.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Is my hon. Friend aware that the experience of Brighton and East Sussex is not unique and that many other areas which perhaps return Conservative county councillors and Conservative Members of Parliament suffered immensely under the Labour Government? For example, the hospital waiting list in Macclesfield increased by 63 per cent. during the last Prime Miniter's tenure of office. That shows what happens under a Labour Government.

Mr. Bowden: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving that information to the House. I have no doubt that during the last 12 months of the life of the Labour Government there was a deliberate intention to transfer resources from areas where they knew that they had no chance of gaining seats into areas where they believed that they could strengthen their political position and have a chance of holding on to certain seats at the general election.
I turn now to a problem which, I believe, concerns every Member of Parliament. It certainly concerns the all-party parliamentary group on pensioners, of which I have the privilege to be one of the joint chairmen, the hon. Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. Stallard) being the other. I refer to heating for the elderly.
My hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield, West (Mr. Dickens) made the powerful point that it was important to move away from special concessions and

allowances to the establishment of a decent living pension. I must tell him, however, that until that laudable objective is reached—may it come as soon as possible—we must still fight for certain specific concessions for the elderly, and no such concession, I believe, is more important than the heating concession.
Our retired people could be facing a very difficult winter, and I ask my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to undertake carefully to review the present fuel allowances system. They have not been operated fairly in the past as they have not included gas, solid fuel and paraffin.
Those pensioners who use paraffin are among the poorest members of our society and the most determined never to get into debt. They prefer to buy paraffin on a hand-to-mouth basis rather than use an electric fire in the knowledge that they will receive electricity bills with which they cannot cope. There is a strong case for a complete review of fuel allowances for the elderly for heating in the coming winter. That was done for electricity and now we must consider other forms of heating.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will have seen the early-day motion in my name about the reviews, changes in the allocation, and increasing of the retirement pension. At present, the retirement pension is based on the cost of living index and/or the wages index, whichever is the most advantageous to the pensioner. I hope that no action will be taken to change that. I must tell my right hon. Friend that if a Bill is brought forward to change that linkage, there will be Conservative Members who will find it extremely difficult, if not impossible, to support it. I ask him to think again extremely carefully.

9.37 p.m.

Mr. Stephen Ross: I thought, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that a Liberal Member was not to be called to contribute to the debate. I have five minutes to make my contribution and I shall do my best to complete my speech. If I go too fast for the Hansard reporters, I apologise.
My right hon. and hon. Friends view the cutbacks in the local authority and health services with considerable foreboding. There seems to be some doubt


about the extent of the cuts. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer used 1979 figures in his Budget speech, whereas the Supplementary Estimates, which we are supposed to be debating, are based on 1978 figures. Nevertheless, the effect of the cuts will be traumatic. It is clear from circular 21/79, which came from the Department of the Environment only last week, that £300 million is to be removed from the increase orders for the rate support grant. Apparently a further 3 per cent, reduction is promised for next year's estimates.
As the Government already know only too well, the shire counties were left in a parlous state after the right hon. Member for Stepney (Mr. Shore), the former Secretary of State for the Environment, had done his worst last year. That argument was advanced by the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Mr. Bowden).
I remind the Secretary of State that it was his colleague, the present Secretary of State for the Environment, who divided the House on last year's settlement, and rightly so.
Many counties have little if anything held in reserve. My own county has almost nothing in reserve. Inflation is spiralling upwards and the county is already in desperate straits. The inevitable results must be fewer teachers, larger classes, yet more postponement of necessary maintenance of property and the introduction of a series of niggling charges.
Reference has been made to the Association of County Councils' paper. I totally reject the association's suggestions. I was horrified to read in The Daily Telegraph that the Minister of State, Department of the Environment is reported to have said " not … enough ". God help us all. Nursery education is likely to be even more difficult to introduce or extend. That must come as a serious blow to young couples with families who are struggling to make ends meet and who both have to go out to work.
The Isle of Wight local authority is faced with an almost impossible task. It is faced with a demand to reduce expenditure this year by up to £1½ million. That will mean about £700,000 being removed from the existing spending pro-

gramme. I am talking about a small authority with a £20 million budget. Next year does not bear thinking about. It has an increasing school population and old-age population and it is doubly hit. With spiralling inflation and additional costs due to its severance by sea, the situation is a nightmare.
Ratepayers in my constituency already pay 10p more in the pound for local government services compared with the ratepayer in the average shire county. There is talk on the Isle of Wight of closing down some of its existing nursery units, reducing heating in schools and charging for music lessons and the sitting of examinations. Road maintenance is already in an appalling state, and due to the hard winter it will be even worse. Concessionary fare schemes will be almost non-existent. We are even talking about closing at least one old people's home when we should be opening three more. There is talk of reducing bed places in mainland establishments and cutting out emergency duty cover.
I understand that the Conservative Party put in its election manifesto a commitment that it would not cut health services. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said so in his Budget speech. Apparently a three-month moratorium on new staffing has been imposed. Already the area health authorities are paying through the nose for cutbacks three years ago in nurses' training. They have to employ agency nurses. New wings in hospitals are standing idle. Meanwhile the pressure for acute bed places grows as there is nowhere for those geriatrics occupying them to go unless they are prepared to pay through the nose in private establishments, which are sprouting up everywhere like mushrooms. I hope that the Secretary of State will say what controls he proposes on the licensing of those establishments, about which we are very worried. Is this what a caring, compassionate society is all about? I do not think so. I reject utterly what is taking place.
We have not talked much about housing. House prices and mortgage rates are spiralling. The public sector building programme is at an all-time low. The plight of those whose only hope of securing a roof over their heads depends upon local authorities and housing corporations will become even more desperate,


especially if this ill-considered nation-wide compulsory sale of council houses is to be relentlessly pursued. There will be trouble in this area. I am sorry. I am afraid that it will be a matter of great consternation among the younger members of our society.
I urge the Government to stop the rot, first by accepting full responsibility for the whole of the teachers' salary increases above the 5 per cent. already budgeted for by local authorities. The Government should do that for this year. They should also allow local authorities to introduce some form of site value tax on undeveloped land and encourage the raising of other taxes. They should permit schemes, including amalgamation, where sensible, which could lead to greater efficiency in administration. The Secretary of State has, sensibly, started to do that in the Health Service. Why not look at this matter in local government—or is the 1972 Act Holy Writ in Tory circles?
I hope that the Secretary of State for the Environment will maintain the present rate support grant at 61 per cent. The regression analysis formula, which proved to be so unsound and penalised those counties that maintained tight controls on their spending programme, as many of them have, should be scrapped and a fairer system of distribution introduced. There is no time to lose if sanity and common sense are to prevail.

9.43 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Social Services (Mr. Patrick Jenkin): This has been a short debate, but a very welcome one. It gives me the opportunity to make clear the Government's policy on the matters that we have been discussing. This was also a debate to which we had the pleasure of welcoming my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Chapman). I know that the House was grateful to him for what he said about his predecessor, the late Reggie Maudling.
The right hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) opened the debate in a speech that was long on emotion but remarkably short on facts—and even shorter on the remotest inkling that history did not actually begin on 3 May. The previous Government had a record over the past five years of which perhaps

the right hon. Gentleman might have taken account. He was free with his criticisms of the effects of the spending cuts announced by my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor, but he must know that even the most cursory examination of the record of the previous Government shows that they, too, on occasions, and only when they were forced, had to make unpalatable decisions and cuts. But their virtue is never long sustained.
Back in 1976, under the influence of the International Monetary Fund, the Leader of the Opposition, then Prime Minister, said:
 With regard to cutting public expenditure, it ought to be reduced over a period as a proportion of GDP."—[Official Report, 21 October 1976; Vol. 917, c. 1654.]
If only the previous Government had had the guts to stick to that, the situation in which we found ourselves on coming into office would have been incomparably better than it was.
In 1978 the Labour Government wrote in their public expenditure White Paper that they did not intend
 to set up plans which go beyond what the economy can safely be assumed capable of sustaining ",
yet we know that that is exactly what they did. Had they now found themselves responsible for the management of the nation's affairs, they would have had to face making cuts if they were to maintain any vestige of financial integrity. I am glad to have the assent of the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Lewis). But that did not prevent the Labour Party from campaigning in the last election and promising in its manifesto
 a higher proportion of the nation's wealth to the Health Service and the Personal Social Services.
There was not the slightest indication in the books we inherited that there was anything whatever available to make good that promise. It was a blantantly dishonest promise which some Labour Members knew they had no chance whatever of fulfilling.
I call the attention of the House—in case anyone should doubt this—to an interesting observation by the right hon. Member for Heywood and Royton (Mr. Barnett), who was the member of the previous Cabinet in charge of public spending. I gave him notice that I was


proposing to refer to him. He wrote a revealing article in The Guardian on 19 June, in which he quoted the remarks of my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Budget statement:
 We must make savings in public spending and roll back the boundaries of the public sector.
What was the reaction of the right hon. Member for Heywood and Royton to that? He went on to say:
 If we don't want Sir Geoffrey's rolled-back boundaries to be permanent, we in the Labour Party will have to draw up our own. It would be as well to recognise now that some areas of public expenditure that have become almost an Ark of the Covenant of Socialism may have to be sacrificed for higher priorities.
We did not hear much about that during the election.

Mr. Ennals: Mr. Ennals rose—

Mr. Jenkin: I am coming to the right hon. Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Ennals) in a moment. If one were to search any head of expenditure which the party faithful might expect to find enshrined in the ark of the covenant of Socialism, it would, would it not, be spending on the health and personal social services?

Mr. Ennals: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. He had obviously read the PESC review for the next four years, because he said that he would support the growth that we had provided. He will therefore understand that there was built-in growth for the National Health Service and the personal social services. That growth will not be found, as far as I can see—

Mr. Jenkin: I shall be coming to the right hon. Gentleman's calculation about the personal social services in a moment. But one is driven to ask this question about the Labour Party manifesto: if the man in charge of spending knew that it was a dishonest prospectus, how on earth can the Labour Party have the brass to criticise us when we take over from it and now have to make the cuts which it knew were necessary? If the cuts were not to be made on health and the personal social services, where are these arks of the Socialist covenant that the right hon. Member for Heywood and Royton knew would have to be cut?
Of all this we have been told nothing. The House—and, indeed, the country—may be entitled to take the view that until the Labour Party comes clean and tells us what part of the ark of the covenant of Socialism would have to be sacrificed had it been elected, it is not entitled to criticise us for our cuts. Until it does so, debates such as the one that it has mounted today will remain simply exercises in organised hypocrisy.

Mr. Orme: The right hon. Gentleman referred to what the previous Administration did. In very difficult economic circumstances, we maintained and expanded the services. We did not cut public expenditure to put the money into the pockets of the rich.

Mr. Jenkin: The right hon. Gentleman knows that we inherited a Budget deficit and a borrowing need that was more than £2 billion higher than anything the former Chancellor of the Exchequer had disclosed to the country.
The right hon. Gentleman was free in his attacks on our cuts in spending on the National Health Service. In listening to him, one would not have guessed that the revised Estimates on which this debate is being mounted include—as the Supplementary Estimates will—a substantial increase in spending on the National Health Service—increases to cover the substantial pay claims that we inherited from our predecessors.
We inherited the claims and we also inherited, and adopted precisely, the arrangements made by our predecessors for financing them. They were that pay increases approved by the Government would be matched by a corresponding increase in cash limits to help authorities, subject to an offset of £21 million at 1979 prices which is the Health Service's contribution to the general squeeze on cash limits. That had been planned by our predecessors. Therefore, if the Opposition's attack is directed at the squeeze they are attacking what they themselves had planned to do.
The Opposition go on to complain that spending on the Health Service will be cut by the general squeeze on cash limits. But the right hon. Member for Norwich, North confessed that he had made allowances for only 8·5 per cent. inflation and by the time he left office inflation was running at nearly 13 per cent. There


was already a squeeze of 5 per cent. on the cash limits as a result of that, to which we have added a further £35 million to £40 million because of the increase in VAT. The simple fact is that of the total squeeze on the National Health Service—that is, on health authorities—of £90 million to £100 million, no less than 60 per cent. is attributable to decisions made and announced by the previous Government.

Mr. Ennals: Will the right hon. Gentleman accept that at the time the Labour Government went out of office and the Conservative Government came into office we had an inflation rate that was roughly 10 per cent.? Secondly, will he accept that his own estimates of an inflation rate of l7½ per cent. by November is largely due to decisions taken in the Budget by him and his right hon. Friends.

Mr. Jenkin: The right hon. Gentleman's use of figures is so selective as to be meaningless. He told us that under his Government, spending on personal social services had been increased by an average of 6 per cent. per year. We heard him say that. How did he get that figure? He added in the last year of the last Conservative Government. If he had not added in that last year his figure would have been not 6 per cent. but 2 per cent., and in that 2 per cent. was a 58 per cent. cut in the capital spending on personal social services. So when I ask for advice on the figures, I will not turn to the right hon. Member for Norwich, North.
As regards the Health Service, we know that the squeeze will hurt. I want to make that clear, because it is important that the public and the health authorities know where they stand. Some authorities will have a small real addition to their spending power compared with last year, though it will be much less than they had anticipated and they will have to trim back their planned development. Naturally, some health authorities—this applies especially to those in London—are faced with the need to make real cuts this year so as to remain within their cash limits.
It is not for me or my Department to tell health authorities how or where to make savings. It is up to them, as res-

ponsible authorities, to look at their priorities carefully and to make savings where they will do the least harm to patient care. I do not believe that it does any good for the House, or anyone else, to work themselves up into a frenzy because of press reports about the imminent slashing of essential acute services. The right hon. Member for Salford, West mentioned the bone marrow transplant unit at Westminster hospital. I do not believe, and I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman believes, that that would be a sensible economy for the Kensington, Chelsea and Westminster authority to make. I am quite confident that nothing of the sort will happen. There is a phrase for such scaremongering in the National Health Service, I have discovered. It is called " waving the shroud ". We have seen a good deal of waving of the shroud in the last few weeks.
One thing that I want to make absolutely clear to those people who bear responsibility for running the health authorities is that there is no prospect whatever this year of the Government coming forward with extra cash. The cash limits have been announced and health authorities are asked to remain within them. The cash is just not there and it is vital that the authorities, and the public whom they serve, should know that it is not there.
I hope that cuts will be made in a way that will not result in permanent closures, particularly of the much loved small hospitals which serve the community so well. Instead, posts which fall vacant could be left unfilled temporarily and temporary closures of wards may, in some places, be right. But I ask authorities to look first at headquarters staff and administrative services that do not contribute directly to the welfare of patients. It is for health authorities themselves to decide, and it is certainly not for me to tell them.
Of course, some of the personal social services are bound to be affected by the cuts, but I do not intend to instruct local authorities as to how or where they should find savings. They are elected bodies answerable to their own electorates, and they can be trusted to pursue sensible priorities. The only guidance that we have given is to point to the priority that we wish to give to law and order. The Government have made it


clear—I am happy to repeat it again tonight—that we regard those parts of the children's services concerned with the prevention and treatment of deliquency as having the same priority as law and order services. As for the rest, it is too soon to say what the effect will be. I have made it clear that I hope that local authorities will do their utmost to protect the services for the most vulnerable groups, such as the very old and frail, the seriously handicapped, the mentally disordered and the children most in need of care.
I know that local authorities will do their best to make strenuous efforts to cut back on the costs of administration. I know, too, that they will seek to work as closely as possible with the voluntary sector—here I agree with much of what my predecessor said—and the self-help groups.

Mr. Frank Haynes: Mr. Frank Haynes (Ashfield) rose—

Mr. Jenkin: I am sorry, but I have only three minutes left.
This is not the time to cut the financial help to the voluntary bodies and the self-help groups. I repeat the pledge that I have given outside—that the Government are maintaining the level of grants that they make to the voluntary sector. I hope that local authorities will feel it right to do the same in real terms.
As I approach the end of the debate, I should like to take up a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Mr. Bowden). The Labour Party always seems to use occasions such as this to advance its claim to be the champion of the underprivileged. We have had plenty of examples of that today. We have learned to take all that with substantial handfuls of salt. We have recently been given ample evidence to justify our scepticism. The recent report of the Diamond commission on the distribution of income and wealth—a quango now happily consigned to the knacker's yard—which was one of the creations of the Labour Party, demonstrated that whereas under the last Conservative Government people of modest means increased their share of the nation's wealth, the opposite happened under the Labour Government.
It is a remakable epitaph on the period of the government of the Labour Party that the Daily Mirror, rarely a paper to

champion the interests of my right hon. and hon. Friends, should have summed up Labour's campaign to soak the rich by stating that:
 two long periods of Socialist power put more into the pockets of the wealthy while the poor are even poorer.
If one looks at the banana republics of the world, one will find precisely that—that the poor get poorer and the rich get richer. That is what happens under Socialism in this country.
Like most of my hon. Friends, I shall not be privileged to attend the next Labour Party conference. I do not know whether it will be the right hon. Member for Salford, West who will have to defend the Labour Government's record, but he will have some difficulty in wriggling out of that one.
It has always been the same. Under Labour, the people suffer. Ever higher and higher burdens of taxation are no recipe for national prosperity. In the final resort, our ability to raise standards of living, and to pay for better public services, depends on our ability to generate the resources to pay for them. The Labour Party forfeited the confidence of the people for many reasons, one of which was its consistent inability to tailor its ambitions to spend to the willingness of the taxpayer to pay.
This Government are determined to reverse the historic long-term decline of our nation and we are not afraid to take the necessary steps to achieve that purpose. We must restore incentives. We must cut direct taxes and we must curb the level of public spending to what can be sustained by the economy—

It being Ten o'clock, Mr. SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to Order this day, to put forthwith the Question necessary to dispose of proceedings on the motion relating to reducing public services for those who need them most.

Question put,
That this House declines to approve the Revised and Summer Supplementary Estimates 1979–80 which contain reductions in the Vote to Health and Personal Services, Housing and other public services and will result in a reduction in the standard of provision of these services, especially to those members of the community who need them most, and so will increase the divisions in society.

The House divided: Ayes 257, Noes 317.

Division No. 61]
AYES
[7.32 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Bray, Dr Jeremy


Adams, Allen
Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)
Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)


Allaun, Frank
Beith, A. J.
Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)


Alton, David
Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
Brown, Ronald W. (Hackney S)


Archer, Rt Han Peter
Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Brown, Ron (Edinburgh, Leith)


Armstrong, Ernest
Bidwell, Sydney
Buchan, Norman


Ashley, Jack
Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)


Ashton, Joe
Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Campbell, Ian


Atkinson, Norman (H'gey, Tott'ham)
Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur (M'brough)
Campbell-Savours, Dale


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Bradley, Tom
Canavan, Dennis




Cant, R. B.
Heffer, Eric S.
Parry, Robert


Carmichael, Neil
Hogg, Norman (E Dunbartonshire)
Pendry, Tom


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Holland, Stuart (L'beth, Vauxhall)
Penhaligon, David


Cartwright, John
Home Robertson, John
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Homewood, William
Prescott, John


Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)
Hooley, Frank
Price, Christopher (Lewisham West)


Cohen, Stanley
Horam, John
Race, Reg


Coleman, Donald
Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham, Sm H)
Radice, Giles


Concannon Rt Hon J. D.
Howells, Geraint
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds South)


Conlan, Bernard
Huckfield, Les
Richardson, Miss Jo


Cook, Robin F.
Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Cowans, Harry
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen North)
Roberts, Ernest (Hackney North)


Cralgen, J. M. (Glasgow, Maryhill)
Hughes, Boy (Newport)
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)


Crowther, J. S.
Janner, Hon Greville
Robertson, George


Cryer, Bob
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Rodgers, Rt Hon William


Cu[...]liffe, Lawrence
John, Brynmor
Rooker, J. W.


Cunningham, George (Islington S)
Johnson, James (Hull West)
Roper, John


Cunningham, Dr John (Whitehaven)
Johnson, Waller (Derby South)
Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)


Dalyell, Tam
Jones, Alec (Rhondda)
Ross Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Davidson, Arthur
Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Rowlands, Ted


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llane[...])
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Ryman, John


Davies, E. Hudson (Caerpilly)
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Sandelson, Neville


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Kerr, Russell
Sever, John


Davis, Clinton (Hackney Central)
Kilroy-Silk Robert
Sheerman, Barry


Davis, Terry (B'rm'ham, Stechford)
Kinnock, Neil
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert (A'ton-u-L)


Deakins, Eric
Lambie, David
Shore, Rt Hon Peter (Step and POD)


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Lamborn, Harry
Short, Mrs Renée


Dempsey, James
Lamond, James
Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)


Dewar, Donald
Leadbitter, Ted
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)


Dixon, Donald
Leighton, Ronald
Silverman, Julius


Dobson, Frank
Lewis, Arthur (Newham North West)
Skinner, Dennis


Dormand, J. D.
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Snape, Peter



Lyon, Alexander (York)
Soley, Clive


Dubs, Alfred
Lyons, Edward (Bradford West)
Spearing, Nigel


Duffy, A. E. P.
Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson
Spriggs, Leslie


Dunn, James A. (Liverpool, Kirkdale)
McCartney, Hugh
Stallary, A. W.


Dunnett, Jack
McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Stewart, Rt Hon Donald (W Isles)


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
McElhone, Frank
Stoddart, David


Eadie, Alex
McGuire, Michael (Ince)
Stott, Roger


Eastham, Ken
McKelvey, William
Strang, Gavin


Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)
MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor
Straw, Jack


Ellis, Raymond (NE Derbyshire)
Maclennan, Robert
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, Central)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton West)


English, Michael
McNally, Thomas
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Ennals, Rt Hon David
McNamara, Kevin
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle East)


Evans, loan (Aberdare)
McWilliam, John
Thomas, Dr Roger (Carmarthen)


Evans, John (Newton)
Magee, Bryan
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


Ewing, Harry
Marks, Kenneth
Tilley, John


Faulds, Andrew
Marshall, David (Gl'sgow,Shetties'n)
Torney, Tom


Field, Frank
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Urwin, Rt Hon Tom


Fitch, Alan
Marshall, Jim (Leicester South)
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Flannery, Martin
Martin, Michael (Gl'gow, Springb'rn)
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Mason, Rt Hon Roy
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Maynard, Miss Joan
Watkins, David


Ford, Ben
Meacher, Michael
Weetch, Ken


Forrester, John
Mellish, Rt Hon Robert
Wellbeloved, James


Foster, Derek
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Welsh, Michael


Foulkes, George
Mikardo, Ian
White, Frank R. (Bury &amp; Radcliffe)


Fraser, John (Lambeth, Norwood)
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)


Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
Miller, Dr M. S. (East Klibride)
Whitehead, Phillip




Whitlock, William


Freud, Clement
Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)
Wigley, Dafydd


Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)
Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


George, Bruce
Morris, Rt Hon Charles (Openshaw)
Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)
Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)


Ginsberg, David
Morton, George
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)


Golding, John
Moyle, Rt Hon Roland
Winnick, David


Gourley, Harry
Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick
Woodall, Alec


Graham, Ted
Newens, Stanley
Woolmer, Kenneth


Grant, George (Morpeth)
Oakes, Gordon
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Grant, John (Islington C)
Ogden, Eric



Grimond, Rt Hon J.
O'Halloran, Michael
Wright, Miss Sheila


Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
O'Neill, Martin
Young, David (Bolton East)


Hardy, Peter
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley



Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David
TELLERS FOR THE AYES


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Palmer, Arthur
Mr. James Hamilton and


Haynes, David
Park, George
Mr James Tinn.


Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Parker, John





NOES


Adley, Robert
Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Atkins, Robert (Preston North)


Aitken, Jonathan
Ancram, Michael
Atkinson, David (B'mouth, East)


Alexander, Richard
Aspinwall, Jack
Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)







Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)


Banks, Robert
Fox, Marcus
McQuarrie, Albert


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford &amp; St)
Madel, David


Bell, Ronald
Fraser, Peter (South Angus)
Major, John


Bendall, Vivian
Fry, Peter
Marland, Paul


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)
Galbraith, Hon T. G. D.
Marlow, Antony


Benyon, Thomas (Abingdon)
Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Benyon, W. (Buckingham)
Gardner, Edward (South Fylde)
Marten, Neil (Banbury)


Best, Keith
Garel-Jones, Tristan
Mates, Michael


Bevan, David Gilroy
Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Mather, Carol


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Glyn, Dr Alan
Maude, Rt Hon Angus


Biggs-Davison, John
Goodhart, Philip
Mawby, Ray


Blackburn, John
Goodhew, Victor
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Blaker, Peter
Goodlad, Alastair
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Body, Richard
Gorst, John
Mayhew, Patrick


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Gow, Ian
Mellor, David


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Gower, Sir Raymond
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Bottomley, Peter (Woolwich West)
Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove &amp; Redditch)


Bowden, Andrew
Greenway, Harry
Mills, Iain (Meriden)


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Grieve, Percy
Mills, Peter (West Devon)


Bradford, Rev. R.
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St Edmunds)
Miscampbell, Norman


Braine, Sir Bernard
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)


Bright, Graham
Grist, Ian
Moate, Roger


Brinton, Timothy
Grylls, Michael
Montgomery, Fergus


Brittan, Leon
Gummer, John Selwyn
Morgan, Geraint


Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Hamilton, Hon Archie (Eps'm&amp;Ew'll)
Morris, Michael (Northampton, Sth)


Brooke, Hon Peter
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Morrison, Hon Charles (Devizes)


Brotherton, Michael
Hampson, Dr Keith
Morrison, Hon Peter (City of Chester)


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Sc'thorpe)
Hannam, John
Mudd, David


Browne, John (Winchester)
Haselhurst, Alan
Murphy, Christopher


Bruce-Gardyne, John
Hastings, Stephen
Myles, David


Bryan, Sir Paul
Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
Neale, Gerrard


Buchanan-Smith, Hon Alick
Hawkins, Paul
Nelson, Anthony


Buck, Antony
Hawksley, Warren
Neubert, Michael


Budgen, Nick
Hayhoe, Barney
Newton, Tony


Bulmer, Esmond
Heath, Rt Hon Edward
Nott, Rt Hon John


Burden, F. A.
Heddle, John
Onslow, Cranley


Butcher, John
Henderson, Barry
Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs Sally


Butler, Hon Adam
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Osborn, John


Cadbury, Jocelyn
Hicks, Robert
Page, John (Harrow, West)


Carlisle, John (Luton West)
Higgins, Terence L.
Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hill, James
Parkinson, Cecil


Carlisle, Rt Hon Mark (Runcorn)
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Grantham)
Patten, Christopher (Bath)


Chalker, Mrs. Lynda
Holland, Philip (Carlton)
Patten, John (Oxford)


Channon, Paul
Hooson, Tom
Pattie, Geoffrey


Chapman, Sydney
Hordern, Peter
Pawsey, James


Churchill, W.S.
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Percival, Sir Ian


Clark, Hon Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
Howell, Rt Hon David (Guildford)
Peyton, Rt Hon John


Clark, William (Croydon South)
Hunt, David (Wirral)
Pink, R. Bonner


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Pollock, Alexander


Clegg, Walter
Hurd, Hon Douglas
Porter, George


Cockeram, Eric
Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg


Colvin, Michael
Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Cope, John
Jessel, Toby
Prior, Rt Hon James


Cormack, Patrick
Johnson Smith, Geoffrey
Proctor, K. Harvey


Corrie, John
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Raison, Timothy


Costain, A. P.
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Rathbone, Tim


Cranborne, Viscount
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Rees, Peter (Dover and Deal)


Critchley, Julian
Kershaw, Anthony
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Crouch, David
Kimball, Marcus
Renton, Tim


Dean, Paul (North Somerset)
King, Rt Hon Tom
Rhodes James, Robert


Dickens, Geoffrey
Kitson, Sir Timothy
Ridley, Hon Nicholas


Dodsworth, Geoffrey
Knight, Mrs Jill
Ridsdale, Julian


Dorrell, Stephen
Knox, David
Rifkind, Malcolm


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Lamont, Norman
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)


du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Lang, Ian
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Dunn, Robert (Dartford)
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Robinson, Peter (Belfast East)


Durant, Tony
Latham, Michael
Rossi, Hugh


Dykes, Hugh
Lawrence, Ivan
Rost, Peter


Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
Lawson, Nigel
Royle, Sir Anthony


Edwards, Rt Hon N. (Pembroke)
Lee, John
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Eggar, Timothy
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon Norman


Elliott, Sir William
Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Scott, Nicholas


Emery, Peter
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Eyre, Reginald
Lloyd, Ian (Havant &amp; Waterloo)
Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)


Fairgrieve, Russell
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Faith, Mrs Sheila
Loveridge, John
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Farr, John
Luce, Richard
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge-Br'hills)


Fell, Anthony
Lyell, Nicholas
Shersby, Michael


Fenner, Mrs Peggy
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Silvester, Fred


Finsberg, Geoffrey
McCrindle, Robert
Sims, Roger


Fisher, Sir Nigel
Macfarlane, Neil
Skeet, T. H. H.


Fletcher, Alexander (Edinburgh N)
MacGregor, John
Smith, Dudley (War, and Leam'ton)


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Mackay, John (Argyll)
Speed, Keith


Fookes, Miss Janet
Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)
Speller, Tony


Forman, Nigel
McNair-Wilson, Michael (Newbury)
Spence, John







Spicer, Michael (S Worcestershire)
Townend, John (Bridlington)
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Sproat, Iain
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexleyheath)
Wells, P. Bowen (Hert'rd&amp;Stev'nage)


Squire, Robin
Trippier, David
Wheeler, John


Stanbrook, Ivor
Trotter, Neville
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


Stanley, John
van Straubenzee, W. R.
Whitney, Raymond


Steen, Anthony
Vaughan, Dr Gerard
Wickenden, Keith


Stevens, Martin
Viggers, Peter
Wiggin, Jerry


Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)
Waddington, David
Wilkinson, John


Stewart, John (East Renfrewshire)
Wakeham, John
Williams, Delwyn (Montgomery)


Stokes, John
Waldegrave, Hon William
Winterton, Nicholas


Stradling Thomas. J
Walker, Rt Hon Peter (Worcester)
Wolfson, Mark


Tapsell, Peter
Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Tebbit, Norman
Wall, Patrick
Younger, Rt Hon George


Temple-Morris, Peter
Waller, Gary



Thomas, Rt Hon Peter (Hendon S)
Walters, Dennis
TELLERS FOR THE NOES


Thompson, Donald
Ward, John
Mr. Spencer Le Marchant an[...]


Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)
Warren, Kenneth
Mr. Anthony Berry


Thornton, George
Watson, John



Question accordingly negatived.

Division No. 62[...]
AYES
10.00 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Mellish, Rt Hon Robert


Adams, Allen
Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Mikardo, Ian


Allaun, Frank
Ford, Ben
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Alton, David
Forrester, John
Miller, Dr M. S. (East Kilbride)


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Foster, Derek
Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)


Armstrong, Rt Hon Ernest
Foulkes, George
Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Fraser, John (Lambeth, Norwood)
Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wythenshawe)


Ashton, Joe
Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
Morris, Rt Hon Charles (Openshaw)


Atkinson, Norman (H'gey, Tott'ham)
Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)
Morton, George


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
George, Bruce
Moyle, Rt Hon Roland


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick


Beith, A. J.
Ginsburg, David
Newens, Stanley


Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
Golding, John
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Gourlay, Harry
Ogden, Eric


Bidwell, Sydney
Grant, George (Morpeth)
O'Halloran, Michael


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Grant, John (Islington C)
O'Neill, Martin


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur (M'brough)
Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David


Bradley, Tom
Hardy, Peter
Palmer, Arthur


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Park, George


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Parker, John


Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)
Haynes, Frank
Parry, Robert


Brown, Ronald W. (Hackney S)
Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Pendry, Tom


Brown, Ron (Edinburgh, Leith)
Heffer, Eric S.
Penhaligon, David


Buchan, Norman
Hogg, Norman (E Dunbartonshire)
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)
Holland, Stuart (L'beth, Vauxhall)
Price, Christopher (Lewisham West)


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Home Robertson, John
Race, Reg


Campbell, Ian
Homewood, William
Radice, Giles


Canavan, Dennis
Hooley, Frank
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds South)


Cant, R. B.
Horam, John
Richardson, Miss Jo


Carmichael, Neil
Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham, Sm H)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Howells, Geraint
Roberts, Ernest (Hackney North)


Cartwright, John
Huckfield, Les
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)


Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Robertson, George


Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen North)
Rodgers, Rt Hon William


Cohen, Stanley
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Rooker, J. W.


Coleman, Donald
Janner, Hon Greville
Roper, John


Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)


Conlan, Bernard
John, Brynmor
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Cook, Robin F.
Johnson, James (Hull West)
Rowlands, Ted


Cowans, Harry
Johnson, Walter (Derby South)
Ryman, John


Craigen, J. M. (Glasgow, Maryhill)
Jones, Rt Hon Alec (Rhondda)
Sandelson, Neville


Crowther, J. S.
Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Sever, John


Cryer, Bob
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Sheerman, Barry


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert (A'ton-u-L)


Cunningham, George (Islington S)
Kerr, Russell
Shore, Rt Hon Peter (Step and Pop)


Cunningham, Dr John (Whitehaven)
Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Short, Mrs Renée


Dalyell, Tam
Kinnock, Nell
Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)


Davidson, Arthur
Lambie, David
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)


Davies, Rt Hon Denzll (Llanelli)
Lamborn, Harry
Silverman, Julius


Davies, E. Hudson (Caerphilly)
Lamond, James
Skinner, Dennis


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Leadbitter, Ted
Smith, Rt Hon J. (North Lanarkshire)


Davis, Clinton (Hackney Central)
Leighton, Ronald
Snape, Peter


Davis, Terry (B'rm'ham, Stechford)
Lewis, Arthur (Newham North West)
Soley, Clive


Deakins, Eric
Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Spearing, Nigel


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Lyon, Alexander (York)
Spriggs, Leslie


Dempsey, James
Lyons, Edward (Bradford West)
Stallard, A. W.


Dewar, Donald
Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dlckson
Stewart, Rt Hon Donald (W Isles)


Dixon, Donald
McCartney, Hugh
Stoddart, David


Dobson, Frank
McDonald, Dr. Oonagh
Stott, Roger


Dormand, Jack
McElhone, Frank
Strang, Gavin


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
McGuire, Michael (Ince)
Straw, Jack


Dubs, Alfred
McKelvey, William
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


Duffy, A. E. P.
MacKenzle, Rt Hon Gregor
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton West)


Dunn, James A. (Liverpool, kirkdale)
Maclennan, Robert
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Dunnett, Jack
McMahon, Andrew
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, Central)
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle East)


Eadie, Alex
McNally, Thomas
Thomas, Dr Roger (Carmarthen)


Eastham, Ken
McNamara, Kevin
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)
McWilliam, John
Tilley, John


Ellis, Raymond (NE Derbyshire)
Magee, Bryan
Tinn, James


Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)
Marks, Kenneth
Torney, Tom


English, Michael
Marshall, David (Gl'sgow.Shettles'n)
Urwin, Rt Hon Tom


Ennals, Rt Hon David
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Evans, loan (Aberdare)
Marshall, Jim (Leicester South)
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Ewing, Harry
Martin, Michael (Gl'gow.Springb'rn)
Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)


Field, Frank
Mason, Rt Hon Roy
Walker, Rt Hon Harold (Doncasfer)


Fitch, Alan
Maynard, Miss Joan
Watkins, David


Flannery, Martin
Meacher, Michael
Weetch, Ken







Wellbeloved, James
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Welsh, Michael
Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)
Wright, Shella


White, Frank R. (Bury &amp; Radcllffe)
Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)
Young, David (Bolton East)


White, James (Glasgow, pollok)
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)



Whitehead, Phillip
Winnick, David
TELLERS FOR THE AYES


Whitlock, William
Woodall, Alec
Mr. Ted Graham and


Willey, Rt Hon Frederick
Woolmer, Kenneth
Mr. John Evans.




NOES


Adley, Robert
Dunlop, John
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Aitken, Jonathan
Dunn, Robert (Dartford)
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith


Alexander, Richard
Durant, Tony
Kaberry, Sir Donald


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Dykes, Hugh
Kershaw, Anthony


Ancram, Michael
Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
Kilfedder, James A.


Aspinwall, Jack
Edwards, Rt Hon N. (Pembroke)
Kimball, Marcus


Atkins, Robert (Preston North)
Eggar, Timothy
King, Rt Hon Tom


Atkinson, David (B'mouth, East)
Elliott, Sir William
Kitson, Sir Timothy


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Emery, Peter
Knight, Mrs Jill


Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)
Eyre, Reginald
Knox, David


Banks, Robert
Fairbairn, Nicholas
Lamont, Norman


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Fairgrieve, Russell
Lang, Ian


Bell, Ronald
Faith, Mrs Sheila
Langford-Holt, Sir John


Bendall, Vivian
Farr, John
Latham, Michael


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)
Fell, Anthony
Lawrence, Ivan


Benyon, Thomas (Abingdon)
Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Lawson, Nigel


Benyon, W. (Buckingham)
Finsberg, Geoffrey
Lee, John


Best, Keith
Fisher, Sir Nigel
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Bevan, David Gilroy
Fletcher, Alexander (Edinburgh N)
Lester, Jim (Beeston)


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)


Biggs-Davison, John
Fookes, Miss Janet
Lloyd, Ian (Havant &amp; Waterloo)


Blackburn, John
Forman, Nigel
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Blaker, Peter
Fowler. Rt Hon Norman
Loveridge, John


Body, Richard
Fox, Marcus
Luce, Richard


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford &amp; St)
Lyell, Nicholas


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Fraser, Peter (South Angus)
McAdden, Sir Stephen


Bottomley, Peter (Woolwich West)
Fry, Peter
McCrindle, Robert


Bowden, Andrew
Galbraith, Hon T. G. D.
Macfarlane, Nell


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Gardiner, George (Reigate)
MacGregor, John


Bradford, Rev. R.
Gardner, Edward (South Fylde)
MacKay, John (Argyll)


Braine, Sir Bernard
Garel-Jones, Tristan
Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)


Bright, Graham
Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian
McNair-Wilson, Michael (Newbury)


Brinton, Tim
Glyn, Dr Alan
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)


Brittan, Leon
Goodhart, Philip
McQuarrie, Albert


Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Goodlad, Alastair
Madel, David


Brooke, Hon Peter
Gorst, John
Major, John


Brotherton, Michael
Gow, Ian
Marland, Paul


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Sc'thorpe)
Gower, Sir Raymond
Marlow, Tony


Browne, John (Winchester)
Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Bruce-Gardyne, John
Greenway, Harry
Marten, Nell (Banbury)


Bryan, Sir Paul
Grieve, Percy
Mates, Michael


Buchanan-Smith, Hon Alick
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St Edmunds)
Mather, Carol


Buck, Antony
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Maude, Rt Hon Angus


Budgen, Nick
Grist, Ian
Mawby, Ray


Bulmer, Esmond
Grylls, Michael
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Burden, F. A.
Gummer, John Selwyn
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Butcher, John
Hamilton, Hon Archie (Eps'm&amp;Ew'll)
Mayhew, Patrick


Butler, Hon Adam
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Mellor, David


Cadbury, Joceiyn
Hampson, Dr Keith
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Carlisle, John (Luton West)
Hannam, John
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove &amp; Redditch)


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Haselhurst, Alan
Mills, Iain (Meriden)


Carlisle, Rt Hon Mark (Runcorn)
Hastings, Stephen
Mills, Peter (West Devon)


Chalker, Mrs. Lynda
Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
Miscampbell, Norman


Channon, Paul
Hawkins, Paul
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)


Chapman, Sydney
Hawksley, Warren
Moate, Roger


Churchill, W. S.
Hayhoe, Barney
Montgomery, Fergus


Clark, Hon Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
Heath, Rt Hon Edward
Morgan, Geraint


Clark, Dr William (Croydon South)
Heddle, John
Morris, Michael (Northampton, Sth)


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Henderson, Barry
Morrison, Hon Peter (City of Chester)


Clegg, Walter
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Mudd, David


Cockeram, Eric
Hicks, Robert
Murphy, Christopher


Colvin, Michael
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Myles, David


Cope, John
Hill, James
Neale, Gerrard


Cormack, Patrick
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Grantham)
Nelson, Anthony


Corrie, John
Holland, Philip (Carlton)
Neubert, Michael


Costain, A. P.
Hooson, Tom
Newton, Tony


Cranborne, Viscount
Hordern, Peter
Nott, Rt Hon John


Critchley, Julian
Howell, Rt Hon David (Guildford)
Onslow, Cranley


Crouch, David
Hunt, David (Wirral)
Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs Sally


Dean, Paul (North Somerset)
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Osborn, John


Dickens, Geoffrey
Hurd, Hon Douglas
Page, John (Harrow, West)


Dodsworth, Geoffrey
Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)
Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)


Dorrell, Stephen
Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick
Parkinson, Cecil


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Jessel, Toby
Patten, Christopher (Bath)


du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Johnson Smith, Geoffrey
Patten, John (Oxford)







Pattie, Geoffrey
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Trotter, Neville


Pawsey, James
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge-Br'hills)
van Straubenzee, W. R.


percival, Sir Ian
Shersby, Michael
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


Peyton, Rt Hon John
Silvester, Fred
Viggers, Peter


Pink, R. Bonner
Sims, Roger
Waddington, David


Pollack, Alexander
Skeet, T. H. H.
Wakeham, John


Porter, George
Smith, Dudley (War. and Leam'ton)
Waldegrave, Hon William


Prentice, Rt Hon Reg
Speed, Keith
Walker, Rt Hon. Peter (Worcester)


Frice, David (Eastleigh)
Speller, Tony
Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek


Prior, Rt Hon James
Spence, John
Wall, Patrick


Proctor, K. Harvey
Spicer, Michael (S Worcestershire)
Waller, Gary


Raison, Timothy
Sproat, Iain
Walters, Dennis


Rathbone, Tim
Squire, Robin
Ward, John


Rees, Peter (Dover and Deal)
Stanbrook, Ivor
Warren, Kenneth


Rees-Davies, W. R.
Stanley, John
Watson, John


Renton, Tim
Steen, Anthony
Wells, John (Maldstone)


Rhodes James, Robert
Stevens, Martin
Wells, Bowen (Hert'rd &amp; Stev'nage)


Ridley, Hon Nicholas
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)
Wheeler, John


Ridsdale, Julian
Stewart, John (East Renfrewshire)
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


Rifkind, Malcolm
Stokes, John
Whitney, Raymond


Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)
Stradling Thomas, J.
Wickenden, Keith


Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Tapsell, peter
Wiggin, Jerry


Robinson, Peter (Belfast East)
Tebbit, Norman
Wilkinson, John


Rossl, Hugh
Temple-Morris, Peter
Williams, Delwyn (Montgomery)


Rost, Peter
Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Winterton, Nicholas


Royle, Sir Anthony
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter (Hendon S)
Wolfson, Mark


Sainsbury, Hon Timothy
Thompson, Donald
Young, Sir George (Acton)


St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon Norman
Thorne, Nell (Ilford South)
Younger, Rt Hon George


Scott, Nicholas
Thornton, Malcolm



Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Townend, John (Bridlington)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexleyheath)
Mr. Spencer Le Marchant and


Shelton, William (Streatham)
Trippler, David
Mr. Anthony Berry.

Question accordingly negatived.

Orders of the Day — DEFENCE AND CIVIL ESTIMATES, 1979–80 (OUTSTANDING VOTES)

Motion made, and Question proposed,

That a sum not exceeding £31,112,689,100 be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to complete or defray the charges for Defence and Civil Services for the year ending on 31st March 1980, as set

out in House of Commons Papers Nos. 244, 266 and 280 of Session 1978–79 and Nos. 125 and 126 of this Session.—[Mr. Lawson.]

Whereupon a motion was made, and suant to Order this day, That the sum be reduced by £2,324,943,000 in respect of Class I Vote 2.—[Mr. Cook.]:—

The House divided: Ayes 82, Noes 288.

Division No 63.[...]
AYES
[...]10.15 p.m.


Allaun, Frank
Kaynes, Frank
Parry, Robert


Alton, David
Heffer, Eric S.
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Bidwell, Sydney
Holland, Stuart (L'beth, Vauxhall)
Price, Christopher (Lewisham West)


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Homewood, William
Race, Reg


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen North)
Richardson, Miss Jo


Brown, Ron (Edinburgh, Leith)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Roberts, Ernest (Hackney North)


Buchan, Norman
Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Lambie, David
Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)


Canavan, Dennis
Lamond, James
Ryman, John


Carmichael, Neil
Leighton, Ronald
Silverman, Julius


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Lewis, Arthur (Newham North West)
Skinner, Dennis


Clark, David (South Shields)
McDonald, Dr. Oonagh
Soley, Clive


Cook, Robin F.
McKelvey, William
Stallard, A. W.


Cryer, Bob
McNamara, Kevin
Stewart, Rt Hon Donald (W Isles)


Davis, Terry (B'rm'ham, Stechford)
McWilliam, John
Straw, Jack


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Marshall, David (Gl'sgow.Shettles'n)
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Dewar, Donald
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Thomas, Dr Roger (Carmarthen)


Dobson, Frank
Marshall, Jim (Leicester South)
Tilley, John


Dubs, Alfred
Martin, Michael (Gl'gow.Springb'rn)
Torney, Tom


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Maynard, Miss Joan
Welsh, Michael


Eastham, Ken
Meacher, Michael
White, Frank R. (Bury &amp; Radcliffe)


Ellis, Raymond (NE Derbyshire)
Mikardo, Ian
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)


Evans, loan (Aberdare)
Miller, Dr M. S. (East Kilbride)
Winnick, David


Evans, John (Newton)
Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)
Wright, Shella


Flannery, Martin
Morris, Rt Hon Charles (Openshaw)



Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Newens, Stanley
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Foster, Derek
O'Neill, Martin
Mr. Stan Thorne and


Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
Park, George
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett.


Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Parker, John





NOES


Adley, Robert
Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Atkins, Robert (Preston North)


Aitken, Jonathan
Ancram, Michael
Atkinson, David (B'mouth, East)


Alexander, Richard
Aspinwall, Jack "
saker, Nicholas (North Dorset)




Banks, Robert
Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Mills, Iain (Meriden)


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Glyn, Dr Alan
Mills, Peter (West Devon)


Beith, A. J.
Goodhart, Philip
Miscampbell, Norman


Bendall, Vivian
Goodlad, Alastair
Moate, Roger


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)
Gorst, John
Montgomery, Fergus


Benyon, Thomas (Abingdon)
Gow, Ian
Morgan, Geraint


Benyon, W. (Buckingham)
Gower, Sir Raymond
Morris, Michael (Northampton, Sth)


Best, Keith
Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)
Morrison, Hon Peter (City of Chester)


Bevan, David Gilroy
Greenway, Harry
Mudd, David


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Grieve, Percy
Murphy, Christopher


Biggs-Davison, John
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St Edmunds)
Myles, David


Blackburn, John
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Neale, Gerrard


Blaker, Peter
Grylls, Michael
Nelson, Anthony


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Gummer, John Selwyn
Newton, Tony


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Hamilton, Hon Archie (Eps'm&amp;Ew'll)
Onslow, Cranley


Bowden, Andrew
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Osborn, John


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Hampson, Dr Keith
Page, John (Harrow, West)


Braine, Sir Bernard
Hannam, John
Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)


Bright, Graham
Hastings, Stephen
Parkinson, Cecil


Brinton, Tim
Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
Patten, Christopher (Bath)


Brittan, Leon
Hawkins, Paul
Pattie, John (Oxford)


Brooke, Hon Peter
Hawksley, Warren
Pattie, Geoffrey


Brotherton, Michael
Hayhoe, Barney
Pawsey, James


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Sc'thorpe)
Heath, Rt Hon Edward
penhaligon, David


Browne, John (Winchester)
Heddle, John
Peyton, Rt Hon John


Bruce-Gardyne, John
Henderson, Barry
Pollock, Alexander


Bryan, Sir Paul
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Porter, George


Buchanan-Smith, Hon Alick
Hicks, Robert
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg


Buck, Antony
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Budgen, Nick
Hill, James
Prior, Rt Kon James


Bulmer, Esmond
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Grantham)
Proctor, K. Harvey


Butcher, John
Holland, Philip (Carlton)
Rathbone, Tim


Butler, Hon Adam
Hooson, Tom
Rees, Peter (Dover and Deal)


Cadbury, Jocelyn
Hordern, Peter
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Carlisle, John (Luton West)
Howell, Rt Hon David (Guildford)
Renton, Tim


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Howells, Geraint
Rhodes James, Robert


Carlisle, Rt Hon Mark (Runcorn)
Hunt, David (Wirral)
Ridley, Hon Nicholas


Chalker, Mrs. Lynda
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Ridsdale, Julian


Channon, Paul
Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)
Rifkind, Malcolm


Chapman, Sydney
Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)


Clark, Hon Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
Jessel, Toby
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Clark, Dr William (Croydon South)
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Robinson, Peter (Belfast East)


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Clegg, Walter
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Ross, Wm. (Londonderry)


Cockeram, Eric
Kershaw, Anthony
Rossl, Hugh


Colvin, Michael
Kilfedder, James A.
Rost, Peter


Cope, John
King, Rt Hon Tom
Royle, Sir Anthony


Corrie, John
Kitson, Sir Timothy
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Costain, A. P.
Knight, Mrs Jill
St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon Norman


Cranborne, Viscount
Lamont, Norman
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Critchley, Julian
Lang, Ian
Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)


Crouch, David
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Dean, Paul (North Somerset)
Lawrence. Ivan
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Dickens, Geoffrey
Lawson, Nigel
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge-Br'hills)


Dodsworth, Geoffrey
Lee, John
Shersby, Michael


Dorrell, Stephen
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Silvester, Fred


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Sims, Roger


du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Skeet, T. H. H.


Dunn, Robert (Dartford)
Lloyd, Ian (Havant &amp; Waterloo)
Smith, Dudley (War. and Leam'ton)


Durant, Tony
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Speed, Keith


Dykes, Hugh
Loveridge, John
Speller, Tony


Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
Luce, Richard
Spence, John


Eggar, Timothy
Lyell, Nicholas
Spicer, Michael (S Worcestershire)


Elliott, Sir William
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Sproat, Iain


Emery, Peter
McCrindle, Robert
Squire, Robin


Eyre, Reginald
Macfarlane, Nell
Stanbrook, Ivor


Fairbairn, Nicholas
MacGregor, John
Stanley, John


Fairgrieve, Russell
MacKay, John (Argyll)
Steen, Anthony


Faith, Mrs Sheila
Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)
Stevens, Martin


Farr, John
McNair-Wilson, Michael (Newbury)
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Fenner, Mrs Peggy
McQuarrie, Albert
Stewart, John (East Renfrewshire)


Finsberg, Geoffrey
Major, John
Stradling Thomas, J.


Fisher, Sir Nigel
Marland, Paul
Tapsell, Peter


Fletcher, Alexander (Edinburgh N)
Marlow, Tony
Tebbit, Norman


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Temple-Morris, Peter


Fookes, Miss Janet
Mates, Michael
Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret


Forman, Nigel
Mather, Carol
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter (Hendon S)


Fowler. Rt Hon Norman
Maude, Rt Hon Angus
Thompson, Donald


Fox, Marcus
Mawby, Ray
Thorne, Neil (Ilford south)


Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford &amp; St)
Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Thornton, Malcolm


Fraser, Peter (South Angus)
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Galbraith, Hon T. G. D.
Mayhew, Patrick
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexleyheath)


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Mellor, David
Trippler, David


Gardner, Edward (South Fylde)
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Trotter, Neville


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove &amp; Redditch)
van Straubenzee, W. R.







Waddington, David
Warren, Kenneth
Williams, Delwyn (Montgomery)


Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)
Watson, John
Winterton, Nicholas


Wakeham, John
Wells, Bowen (Hert'rd &amp; Stev'nage)
Wolfson, Mark


Waldegrave, Hon William
Wheeler, John
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Walker, Rt Hon. Peter (Worcester)
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William
Younger, Rt Hon George


Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek
Whitney, Raymond



Wall, Patrick
Wickenden, Keith
TELLERS FOR THE NOES


Waller, Gary
Wiggin, Jerry
Mr. Spencer le Marchant and


Walters, Dennis
Wilkinson, John
Mr. Anthony Berry


Ward, John

Question accordingly negatived.

The original Question being put forthwith, pursuant to Order this day:—

Resolved,
That a sum not exceeding £31,112,689,100 be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to complete or defray the charges for Defence and Civil Services for the year ending on 31st March 1980, as set out in House of Commons Papers Nos. 244, 266 and 280 of Session 1978–79 and Nos. 125 and 126 of this Session.
Bill ordered to be brought in upon the foregoing Resolution by the Chairman of Ways and Means, the Chancellor of the

Exchequer, Mr. John Biffen, Mr. Peter Rees and Mr. Nigel Lawson.

Orders of the Day — CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRIATION)

Mr. Nigel Lawson accordingly presented a Bill to apply certain sums out of the Consolidated Fund to the service of the year ending 31 March 1980 to appropriate the supplies granted in this Session of Parliament, and to repeal certain Consolidated Fund and Appropriation Acts: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 44.]

Orders of the Day — EAST KILBRIDE DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL (By Order)

Order for Second Reading read.

10.25 p.m.

Dr. M. S. Miller: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
I preface my remarks by indicating that notwithstanding the purport and purposes of this Bill, I have nothing but respect and admiration for the work of East Kilbride Development Corporation. The corporation, over the years, has done a sterling job of work for the people of East Kilbride in particular and for the people of Scotland in general.
This Bill is a follow-up in Scotland to the New Towns (Amendment) Act 1976, but is applicable only to one town, a Scottish new town, East Kilbride. It is a Private Bill, promoted by the district council. Its main object is to provide for the transfer to the district council of the housing and related assets of the East Kilbride Development Corporation.
The district council has found it necessary to introduce a Private Bill because the 1976 Act applies only to England and Wales. The new towns originally were set up under the New Towns Act 1946 and that general legislation is still similar in Scotland.
There are five new towns in Scotland—relatively few—and they are at varying stages of development. The Government of 1976 thought that it was premature to extend the general Act to Scotland since East Kilbride alone among the Scottish new towns had a development corporation which was coming to the end of its life.
On the Second Reading of the 1976 Act the Minister for Planning and Local Government, my right hon. Friend the Member for Deptford (Mr. Silkin), said that he regarded the Bill as a return to one of the great principles of the 1946 Act. He said:
 For there was never any doubt in the minds of those who introduced that Act … that at the end of the day … its assets should go to the local authority … So it was understood from the beginning that the life of new town development corporations should have an end and that, in the fullness of time, the houses provided by them should be transferred to the local authority.

There was no real opposition to the principle of the 1976 Act from the then Conservative Opposition. There was a Division on an amendment moved by the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison), but it was because of a specific point, which has been overtaken by events, namely, that the Bill did not provide any right for new town tenants to purchase their homes.
Nevertheless the hon. Member for Aylesbury said:
 I support the principle behind the Bill … I believe that the first principle of the Bill is right. I do not believe that we should have permanently a clutch of Government-controlled towns which is essentially what new towns are. They should be normalised, with the normal provision for local government.… There may be difficulties, but I am confident that local government is capable of doing the job of running new towns, and in particular, new town housing. Local democracy rather than Government-appointed corporations is the right vehicle for that, and the Bill is a definite step in that direcion.
During the same debate a view was expressed for the Liberal Party by the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross). He said:
 My party greatly welcomes the Bill. Anything which returns control to democratically elected bodies is to be commended."—[Official Report, 23 March 1976; Vol. 908, cc. 212–257.]
I have a letter written by Teddy Taylor, who then represented Glasgow, Cathcart. It indicated that Conservative Members in Scotland also supported the move towards the democratisation of housing in new towns.
There seems to have been a unanimous opinion in 1976 that the principle of transferring the housing assets of new towns in England and Wales to the local housing authorities was right. That principle is still right. In Scotland the new towns are that much older, and East Kilbride has gone well beyond the stage when the housing asset should have been transferred to the district council as a logical step towards the development corporation being wound up.
A natural impatience with this position has led East Kilbride district council to promote the Bill. Ministers have apparently said that they intend to look at the general position of new towns in Scotland and to consider the policy that they will adopt towards new towns that develop their target populations. However, of all the Scottish new towns only


East Kilbride is near reaching its target population.
As the 1976 Act refers to 15 years as being the starting point for the transfer, other new towns in Scotland are approaching the position that East Kilbride has been in for a considerable time.
The ultimate destination of housing assets is surely the local authority, consisting as it does of the people who are elected to do the job. District councils are the local housing authorities in Scotland, and there can surely be no thought of transferring new town housing assets to non-democratically elected bodies or, worse still, setting up a new non-democratically elected body specifically for this purpose.
In the debate in 1976 reservations were expressed about the extent of the public sector housing in new towns, and the proportion that it bore to the total housing stock. The point has always concerned the district council in East Kilbride and its predecessor, the East Kilbride town council. Both these bodies have adopted what I believe to be a reasonable outlook on the sale of municipal houses.
It is felt in East Kilbride that 25 per cent. of the houses owned by the development corporation should be available for sale. The only reservation that the district council has expressed on the subject —and it is a reasonable one—is that these sales should be spread as evenly as possible throughout the town and should not be confined to specific areas, because that would almost create the kind of ghettoes that one finds in some of the larger English and Scottish cities.
Anyone who visited the new town of East Kilbride could not fail to be impressed by the fact that there are no rundown areas, no slums, and no houses that give the appearance of being run down or neglected. It is an evenly developed town. If there has to be owner-occupation, the council wants to see it spread evenly.
East Kilbride is not the only part of the district council's domain; there is also the landward district and the town of Strathaven, where 66 per cent. of the houses are privately owned. The district council in East Kilbride and in the landward area has a stock of about 1,700 houses. Almost 20,000 houses are under

the control of the development corporation.
I can assure the House that there will be no problem about the capacity of East Kilbride to administer efficiently and effectively, as well as democratically—which is the important point—the housing assets which it is felt should be transferred to it under the Bill.
At present there are extremely close relations between the council and the development corporation in housing, with the housing manager of the corporation acting as one of the chief advisers to the council on the operation of the housing undertaking. There would be no problem at all if these assets were transferred.
There would also be taken into the employment of the council all other sections of individuals working with the development corporation. Thus, apart from inheriting the highly experienced and efficient housing department of the development corporation, the district council would have its own team of officials who are concerned with all aspects of the district council's administration, including its present housing undertaking, all of whom are highly qualified and experienced. In fact, they are as highly qualified and experienced a body of local authority officials as are likely to be found working for any district council in Scotland.
Before coming to East Kilbride, all the chief officials worked for large burghs or other authorities with substantial housing undertakings and responsibilities. So there can be no question of a reduction of the quality of administration when the transfer takes place.
The council at present comprises all shades of political opinion. Over the years, since the burgh of East Kilbride was formed in 1963, the council has proved itself to be highly responsible as a local authority. If one visits East Kilbride, what one sees can readily be taken as a tribute to the present district council and the previous town council. In fact, East Kilbride is a highly desirable place in which to live.
Not so long ago in local government terms, namely, in 1967, the former East Kilbride town council made a similar plea, and my hon. Friends will recall what then happened. The House, through


a Private Bill, and exceptionally in Scotland, allowed East Kilbride to achieve large burgh status, and in that case also the town council, in the light of the development and evolution of the town, sought to take over additional responsibilities in the county of Lanark. If the Minister feels that this is not the way in which business should be conducted, I commend to him the situation that existed when the House conferred on East Kilbride large burgh status.
At that time the town council was faced not with opposition to the principle but with questions of timing. Perhaps we shall be told the same tonight—that it is a question of timing. A Royal Commission had been set up to report on local government reorganisation in Scotland. Was it right to make the change in East Kilbride at that time? Would it not prejudice eventual reorganisation? Would it not be a waste of time at that juncture? In the event, Parliament thought otherwise and large burgh status was conferred upon East Kilbride.
The town council had the additional functions in its charge from 1968 to 1975, a period of seven years, during which time, it is no exaggeration to say, gigantic strides were made in the new town in developing services that had fallen behind in the general development of the town.
In drafting the Bill, the district council has closely followed the provisions of the 1976 Act. I shall not go through the clauses in detail, but I shall outline what they do. Clause 3 provides that a transfer scheme may be made providing for the transfer from the development corporation to the district council of its interest in any dwellings of the new town and any of its associated property, rights, liabilities and obligations; and it defines related assets. As well as housing these include other assets such as neighbourhood shopping centres but not industrial or major commercial centres.
Clause 4 provides that within three months of the commencement of the Bill the development corporation and the council shall enter into consultation with the Secretary of State and with each other with a view to the transfer scheme being worked out.
Clause 5 sets out the statutory ingredients of the transfer scheme. Clause 6 requires the development corporation and

the district council to inform Strathclyde regional council of the land proposed to be transferred.
Clause 7 provides that when an application for a transfer scheme is made to the Secretary of State he may, with the consent of the Treasury, approve the scheme with or without modifications, or he may reject it.
Clause 8 provides that the transfer scheme, when approved, will provide a good title to the property without the necessity of conveyancing.
Clause 9 contains provisions with respect to the nominating of tenants by the development corporation under a transfer scheme, and provides that the right shall be exercisable during a period between the date when the transferred dwellings are vested in the district council and the date when the Secretary of State makes an order for the winding up and dissolution of the development corporation. Clause 10 deals with financial arrangements.
Clause 11 makes provision for the council to qualify for a grant if, as a result of the financial arrangements provided for in clause 10, a financial burden is placed on the council and the ratepayers.
Clause 12 places a duty upon the development corporation to give notice to the occupiers of buildings and other land of the proposed transfer scheme and the likely effect of it upon them.
Clause 13 provides for disputes and a mechanism should disputes arise. Clause 14 contains basic provisions for the protection of employees.
The council has circulated a statement that sets out clearly the case for the Bill as it sees it. It explains by reference to target population and state of development that East Kilbride as a new town is nearing the stage when the winding up of the development corporation will in any event have to be considered. The council is not proposing that it be wound up now, but it feels that when it comes to the winding up there may be a number of difficult matters to consider, especially the destination of the industrial and major commercial assets and the redeployment of staff generally. If the difficulties, especially those concerning staff, are to be kept to a minimum, it will be necessary for some form of programme for steps towards the winding up to be


planned and announced well in advance of a final winding up date.
We must be realistic and appreciate that all development corporations, by their very nature, have a vested interest in prolonging their lives. That is not a factor to be taken lightly. If development corporations are given their own way, they will be content to go on in perpetuity. They must be given a final, firm target date and not merely a target population to which to work.
If the Bill is given a Second Reading, there will be a necessary financial resolution relating to the clauses in italics. I hope that if the House expresses itself in favour of the Bill the Government will ensure that the resolution is moved. The financial effect is merely to assure ratepayers in East Kilbride of the normal housing subsidies in respect of the houses transferred.
If a Private Bill of this sort receives a Second Reading, it still requires to go to a Select Committee of hon. Members where the case for it has to be established. As distinct from a Public Bill, the House is not committed, even in principle, to pass the Bill. However, the district council, as the promoter, is given a chance to state its case.
The Bill is merely a continuation of the process of democratisation to which I think we are all committed. Nothing could be more in the mould of what we consider to be the democracy of our people than that they should control not only their political destinies but the assets that have been built up over a number of years by the ratepayers and taxpayers in general. It is a sine qua non of the democratic process that the elected representatives of our towns, districts and constituents should have controlling authority.
There is no more blatant example—not wittingly, but certainly by implication —of that right of people being usurped than the continuation of a development corporation which is not democratically elected and answerable to the people. It is a quango. There is no question about it. I hope that it will be the last quango in East Kilbride.
I do not think that I am asking too much when I state the case for the necessity for this transfer to happen first in

East Kilbride. The corporation has been on the go for 33 years. It is no longer a baby or a teenager. It has moved from the era of post-war jazz into the new pop era. It is now a mature adult.

10.51 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Alexander Fletcher): I wish to make a short intervention to indicate the Government's opposition to this Bill. I appreciate many of the points just made by the hon. Member for East Kilbride (Dr. Miller). I appreciate his very deep interest in this whole business, being the Member of Parliament for East Kilbride. I realise that this must have been quite a talking point in some circles, at least in the new town.
I admire the East Kilbride development corporation. I admire the town and all that it has achieved over the years. I imply no disrespect or criticism of the district council.
The Bill raises questions of importance not just to the new town of East Kilbride but in relation to all the Scottish new towns. That is one of the main reasons why I speak against the hon. Gentleman's proposal.
The Bill provides, in short, for the transfer of the housing assets of East Kilbride development corporation to East Kilbride district council before the completion of East Kilbride new town. As the hon. Gentleman suggested, it purports to be based upon legislation applicable in England and Wales providing for such transfers between development corporations and local authorities, but in fact it goes somewhat further in restricting the Secretary of State's discretion to determine the timing of transfers.
The policy objective itself was rejected by Scottish Ministers in the previous Administration. In the consultative document issued by the previous Administration entitled " The Scottish New Towns ", which was published in January 1975, they stated explicitly that
 The Government do not see advantage in providing for the transfer of property to local authorities during the period of development of the new town save where this is agreed by the corporation and the local authorities to be in their mutual interest.
I do not suggest that there is anything wrong with that. One significant factor that does arise is that the East Kilbride


development corporation does not so agree.
The reason given by the previous Administration therefore weighs with me, namely, that experience shows that the overriding need to promote growth in the Scottish interest can be pursued to good effect by a development corporation in full control of the assets it has created. East Kilbride new town is about 6,500 people short of its target population and will not be complete until at least six more years have passed. The Government believe that it is wrong to provide against the corporation's wishes for transfers of housing to the local authority during that period of continued development.
I ask the hon. Gentleman to bear in mind that the Government will have to consider, therefore, the policy that they wish to adopt towards new towns where development to their target population has been completed. This is a matter to which we shall be turning our attention, but we need time in which to consider the issues fully and to reach conclusions.
Given that no Scottish new town is likely to reach completion in under six years, there is no practical reason why we should be forced to hurried decisions.

Mr. Barry Henderson: While accepting my hon. Friends' point may I take it that in considering these matters he is not precluding the possibility that there will not necessarily have to be a completed target population before some decisions of this kind may go ahead?

Mr. Fletcher: Yes, of course, there are other factors to be taken into account, but it would seem, in our opinion, to be rather unwise to cut off the development—and the organisation that has created the development—just because of what might be termed a rush of impatience, when there is still a target to be completed and an important few years are left before the town has fully reached the target set for it.

Mr. Norman Buchan: Will the hon. Gentleman tell us why the Tory Party in this House a few months ago, when the deputation first came down from East Kilbride, gave enthusiastic support for its proposals? Why did the six years not weigh with it then—

including, of course, the Front Bench of the Tory Opposition at that time?

Mr. Fletcher: I can only tell the hon. Gentleman I did not take part myself. I did not know that the deputation was here. If some of my colleagues greeted the deputation warmly and enthusiastically, that is what I would expect Conservative Members to do to any delegation from Scotland. I would expect them to listen to its case sympathetically. I am sure that is what my hon. Friends did on the occasion to which the hon. Gentleman refers.
In forming our policy towards the development and completion of new towns, we shall not necessarily be bound by provisions in existing Scottish legislation, introduced over 30 years ago when completion of a new town was no more than a distant prospect, or by decisions of the previous Administration legislated for England and Wales or announced as intentions for Scotland.
East Kilbride district council's Private Bill assumes that the Government will be so bound and would, if it were to succeed in Parliament, pre-empt the consideration of policy which the Government wish to undertake.

Dr. M. S. Miller: I have been looking very hard to see where the hon. Gentleman gets the figure of at least six years. Will he indicate where it comes from? It is my information that East Kilbride will be substantially finished long before six years have passed. Indeed, even if the Bill were given a Second Reading and went through, it would probably be about three years before the assets were transferred, and that would be about hitting the time when East Kilbride would be substantially finished.

Mr. Fletcher: As far as the corporation and the Department can estimate, the time before it reaches its target population will be six years, and not the three years to which the hon. Gentleman refers. But there are other considerations, for the Bill takes no account of the new dimension that has been introduced by this Government's insistence, which is central to their policies, that there must be a major shift from the public to the private sector in Great Britain.
What is at issue now is not simply a matter of transfers within the public sector, as the Private Bill presupposes, but rather how best to achieve the Government's objective of transferring assets into private sector hands. We do not believe that this objective would be furthered in any way by transferring new town assets in an intermediate stage to other public sector agencies. On the contrary, such action could only introduce irrelevant delay.

Mr. Dennis Canavan: Does the Minister not accept that, irrespective of the argument about public ownership versus private ownership, what is publicly owned should be publicly accountable?
Is it not sheer hypocrisy for the Prime Minister to declare that it is the Government's policy to abolish quangos while the Minister is defending one of the biggest quangos in Scotland, under which the Prime Minister's placemen rather than democratically elected representatives decide matters such as housing policy, which affects many people in East Kilbride? Is it not time that patronage was replaced by a bit of democracy?

Mr. Fletcher: If I am defending a quango, it is at least a profitable quango —though I suppose that that makes it even worse in the hon. Gentleman's eyes.
It will be evident from what I have said that the issues arising on the policy to be adopted when a new town is completed are of general import and should be covered by general legislation, as has been the case hitherto.
The hon. Member for East Kilbride referred to the Private Bill to make the town a large burgh, but that was specific to East Kilbride. Policy generally towards new towns will require general legislation, because new towns other than East Kilbride will be affected. We are speaking, after all, about assets worth, at a rough estimate, £400 million at East Kilbride and £1,000 million in the Scottish new towns generally. These issues, and such sums, are wholly unsuitable for private legislation as proposed by East Kilbride district council. To the extent that clauses of the Bill impose a charge on public funds, a financial resolution tabled by the Government is required. It is not our intention to take such action.
For the reasons that I have given, the Government urge that the House does not approve the principle of the Bill. We undertake, however, to give early consideration to the policy that we shall wish to adopt towards completed new towns, including East Kilbride, and to make an announcement as soon as conclusions have been reached.

11.2 p.m.

Mr. Norman Buchan: I am glad of the opportunity to speak on the Bill, for a number of reasons. My hon. Friend the Member for East Kilbride (Dr. Miller) described the new town as a baby blossoming into a child, an adolescent, and finally an adult. I can claim to be present at the foetal stage because I was involved in the initial planning of East Kilbride in 1947 and 1948 and I have therefore always had a paternal interest in its development.
When representatives from East Kilbride came to the House in February last year I set out to them the view of the Scottish group of Labour Members that new town decisions should be made by the Scottish Assembly, which was proposed at that time. I said that we should wait and allow the Assembly to take the important decisions on the future of new towns generally and of East Kilbride in particular. I had great pleasure in doing that because the deputation was led by the Scottish National Party, which wanted to precipitate a decision before the Assembly, which it claimed to support, was in being.
The Assembly is no longer under consideration and we therefore revert to the general democratic position that what is publicly owned or built should become democratically accountable as rapidly as possible.
I wish to remind the Minister of what was said by the Opposition spokesman, Teddy Taylor, writing on behalf of the Conservative Party, in 1978. In a letter to the district council, he said:
 Dear Mr. McNay,
It was a very great pleasure to meet you and the members of the District Council in the House of Commons and I very much enjoyed our discussion.
That was the point that the hon. Gentleman made when he said that Tory Members are always nice to people when


they come and meet them. Teddy Taylor went on to say:
 I have had a chat with colleagues and can give the assurance that in the event of your District Council promoting a Bill to transfer the housing assets to the District Council we would not oppose it in principle …assuming that it is in the normal form, following the usual precedents, I can give the assurance "—
he is speaking not only officially but almost ex cathedra—
 that such a measure would enjoy the support of Conservative MPs from Scotland. Yours sincerely, Teddy Taylor.

Dr. M. S. Miller: He was a shadow not a substance.

Mr. Buchan: Let us examine the position. We are not likely, over the next three or four years, to have an Assembly under this Government, and the proposition on that major decision affecting the planning of Scotland—with five new towns involved and one specifically—will not be handled by the Assembly. It therefore comes under the view and economic development concepts of the Tory Government.
When the Under-Secretary says that there will be a six-year gap, I do not understand that unless it means that the Tory Party and the Tory Government in Scotland are not intending to develop house building. If the Under-Secretary is saying that it will take six years before the target is reached, that suggests a very small measure of support for the building of new houses in Scotland—and even that is not totally accurate.
The East Kilbride development corporation does not at present have a single house under construction. The Government are waiting six years for the build-up of the population and the housing target figures, but in fact no houses are being built. The prediction is that even if that aspect were to be proceeded with, unlikely as that is under this Government because of the change in birth rate as well as the current fall-back in house building, it is possible that the population may fall by the early 1980s. If that is what we are waiting for in order to build up the target figure as against the position of either a standstill in house building or a fall back in population, we shall wait for ever—the Greek Kalends—before that position is reached. The Government are not being honest, and should give us better answers.

Mr. Alexander Fletcher: I suggest that the hon. Gentleman does not labour the point about the period of six years before the town reaches its target population. It is an important factor, but I hope that he will agree that a more important consideration is the fact that there is a general policy affecting all the Scottish new towns. Surely it is illogical to decide general policy in such a way that a Private Bill is put forward in respect of one new town, but the policy consideration to which I have referred will affect all the Scottish new towns.

Mr. Buchan: We have been given no indication of such economic policy planning and potential decisions to bear that out. It certainly did not weigh with the Conservative Party when it was making promises to the East Kilbride council in February 1978.
 I can give the assurance that such a measure would enjoy the support of the Conservative MPs from Scotland.
There is nothing there about economic planning or the five new towns in existence. That, with respect, was the proposition that was put forward by the Labour group in this House, but we are now in opposition and therefore do not have the power.
Given the lack of economic planning and the failure to establish an Assembly that could take the matter under its wing, the position is now clear. After 33 years, when we have reached if not the target figure but the optimum figure as far as can be predicted, the time has now come to put the houses under the democratic control of the elected representatives of the people in East Kilbride. That is plain, and should be supported. Unless the Government can come forward with a better reason than they have so far given I cannot see any reason for their opposition.
What we are deciding tonight is whether the Bill should go before the appropriate Bill Committee in order that the case can be then made. No doubt the Government in their evidence will be bringing forward these great plans of theirs for economic planning in relation to the five towns, but they are preventing the opportunity to precipitate and crystallise these marvellous economic planning affairs. The Government have not put the case and the Bill should be supported.

11.10 p.m.

Mr. David Lambie: I support the case put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for East Kilbride (Dr. Miller). I represent the newest of our new towns in Scotland—Irvine—and I see this Bill as a precedent for other Scottish new towns. I do not think that we need to wait until the corporations have reached their population targets before we hand over housing assets to the democratically elected district council.
I feel quite sorry for the Under-Secretary tonight. He has had to come here and do a political U-turn, putting forward policies in government that he did not accept while he was in opposition. He stated that he was not party to the deputation and the previous Conservative group which met East Kilbride district council. I accept that, but we cannot challenge the former Member for Glasgow, Cathcart, Mr. Edward Taylor, because he is not here. The Glasgow people found him out. He had too often given these categorical assurances, quite honestly and sincerely, on behalf of the Conservative Party when in opposition, but he had no desire to carry them out when in government. I see that the Scottish Whip—the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James DouglasHamilton)—is here tonight. He was party to these negotiations. Where is the Secretary of State for Scotland? He was also party to the negotiations. Perhaps he is away celebrating the fact that every area in his constituency is now a special development area. Where is the other Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. Fairgrieve), who was also a member of that group and who gave assurances? It is strange that the only person who did not meet the deputation from East Kilbride was the Minister who is opposing the Bill tonight.
I do not kid myself that if the Labour Party had won the general election a Labour Under-Secretary with responsibility for new towns would not have been at the Dispatch Box reading the same speech, written by the same civil servants. I believe that that would have been the policy of a Labour Government. But I say this to the bright, new young Tories who have come here for Scottish seats since the general election—[HON. MEMBERS: " Where are they? "]—Well at least I can see the hon. Member

for Galloway (Mr. Lang). He fought me in the 1970 election, and I trained him so well that he is here now, having knocked out an SNP Member. Had a Labour Government won the election we would still have opposed their policy on this matter tonight. I appeal to the new Tory Members to oppose Tory policy tonight also and support the case that has been put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for East Kilbride.
In my new town the majority of the houses are controlled by the Cunninghame district council. Another sector of housing is controlled by the Scottish Special Housing Association. That is yet another quango of the worst type. It controls a large area of public sector housing in Irvine new town. We also have houses under the control of the Irvine development corporation. Thus, there are houses controlled by the democratically-elected Cunninghame district council and two other sectors of housing controlled by quangos.
I do not mind the SSHA and the development corporation acting as building agencies. Let them build all the houses they want. But once those houses are built they should be handed over to the district councils, which have special responsibilities and statutory rights for housing.
That is why I support East Kilbride district council's case. This is a precedent. If we can get this Bill through we can do the same for the other new towns and can thereby carry out not my policy alone but that of the Scottish Council of the Labour Party, which is clear that the SSHA should be a building authority but that once the houses are built they should be handed over to the local authorities to be factored and controlled. The same policy applies to the new town corporations.
We go further still. We believe that the new town corporations, instead of being quangos appointed by the Secretary of State, should be merged into the local authorities, either the district or regional councils or both. That would give democratic control of those organisations.

Dr. M. S. Miller: Is it not a disgrace that the New Towns (Amendment) Act 1976 applies to England and Wales and provides exactly the same situation as


we want to apply to Scotland but which the Government will not permit us to do?

Mr. Lambie: I support the point of view that what is good for England and Wales should be good for Scotland—indeed, for Northern Ireland as well, because Northern Ireland also has a housing corporation that is not democratically controlled. Let us have a United Kingdom policy on this matter. Do not let us have one policy for England and Wales and another for Scotland and Northern Ireland.

Mr. John Mackay: If the hon. gentleman carries that argument further, it is equally wrong to put forward a Bill solely for East Kilbride and not for the other new towns.

Mr. Lambie: I am sure that the East Kilbride district council would withdraw the Bill if we got an assurance that a Government Bill would be introduced to cover not only East Kilbride but the other new towns in Scotland. It would receive unanimous support not only from England, Wales and Scotland but, I am sure, from Northern Ireland.
I support this Bill on general principle, but also because I object to having to spend so much of my time, as a Member for a new town, dealing with housing cases which should really be dealt with by the democratically elected district council. Instead of my being able to refer to their local councillors people with local housing cases, the local councillors have to refer them to me, saying " These are Government houses and it is your job as a Member of Parliament to look after them." I want to be able to tell the people who come to me " Go to your local councillors. Take it up with Cunninghame district council, and it will deal democratically with the policies and with the housing complaints."
That is why I support my hon. Friend, and hope that we shall have the unanimous support of the bright young Tories who have come here since the general election. Let them for the first time live up to their promises and vote according to their consciences and not according to the dictates of a Tory Whip who, a year ago, gave assurances opposed to the principles of the Bill. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton) is an old aristocrat, but tonight

he is acting like that nouveau riche, the former Member for Glasgow, Cathcart, Mr. Taylor, who always represented the working class one day and the rich people the next.
I hope that the Government will listen to my hon. Friend's pleas and support the Bill.

11.21 p.m.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: May we clear our minds on certain issues of fact? First, what is the objection to at least allowing discussion of the issue? I understand that tonight we are deciding not the merits of the issue but one matter and one matter only—whether it should be properly discussed. It certainly is the opposite of open government not to allow it to be properly discussed in Committee upstairs. I quietly and gently ask the Under-Secretary at least to reconsider his decision from the following point of view.
Surely there is enough meat here to have a sensible discussion upstairs. Then the Bill would return to the Floor of the House, and if after the discussion the Government stuck to their view I should have far more respect for it than if no discussion had been allowed.
Secondly, my own locus in the matter, without which I would not have interfered, is that I represent one-third of the new town of Livingston. If East Kilbride is to be tied to the coat tails of Livingston. there will be no advance in relation to East Kilbride until the year 2000, because Livingston will not be completed for at least 20 years, and probably a good deal longer.
Are we really saying that there should be no transfer in East Kilbride until all the Scottish new towns are completed? If so, we might as well say " Goodbye " to it for 20 years. Let the Government comment on that.
Thirdly, I do not agree with the Conservatives, but from their point of view it may be that a development corporation rather than a district council is likely to give over assets into private hands. But if that is the argument, let us again come clean. Are the Government saying " In that case, we believe that assets should never be given over, because they are less likely to be given into private hands "? One cannot have this argument both ways; it is one or the other.
If the idea of the policy is that new town houses should to as great an extent as possible be handed over into private hands, let this be said, and let the Government then say " We do not believe, on this account, in handing them over to district councils at all."
I wish to offer the Government my experience as a constituency Member for Livingston. I think that that experience is shared by my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie), who represents two-thirds of the existing new town. We find that proportionately we receive infinitely more housing complaints about the new town corporation than the council.
My hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Lambie) has exactly the same experience. I hold no brief for West Lothian district council or Midlothian district council at the present time, but if councillors are under pressure, things tend to be done more urgently. Livingston corporation has many virtues. The way in which it allocates houses is not one of them. In Knightsbridge Four, unlike East Kilbride, there is something of a slump because the corporation has been tardy and lackadaisical about the letting of houses. There has been an endless number of empty houses. Vandalism has taken place, because houses have been left empty for weeks and months in a way that would never have happened in a council where councillors were under pressure at least to fill the houses.
I am not persuaded that development corporations are the best people to handle the allocation of houses. I would add a personal postscript. In the 1960s, I was Parliamentary Private Secretary to the then Minister of Housing, who took a special interest in English new town housing. There was endless pressure for certain changes to take place in England. These changes have been granted. What my hon. Friend the Member for East Kilbride (Dr. Miller) seeks is little different from what a number of the old traditional English new towns have achieved. Why should this step be denied to East Kilbride?
I am not asking immediately, although it happens to be the policy of West Lothian constituency Labour Party, properly thought out by serious people, that

assets should be handed over. I have no intention of damaging my hon. Friend's case. But we in Livingston are entitled to say that we look for a certain pioneering effort from East Kilbride to see how events work out and eventually to follow.
Heaven help East Kilbride if it is tied to the coattails of Livingston, which takes a long time to reach its full objectives. I hope that an opportunity will be given for serious discussion of these matters upstairs. That is the only immediate issue tonight. To say that they should not be discussed is a travesty of open government.

11.28 p.m.

Mr. Hugh D. Brown: I feel under no obligation tonight to defend the previous Government. I intend to enjoy the freedom that I now possess. It should be put on the record that East Kilbride is a very political council. Fortunately, it is changing from a Scottish National Party-controlled council and will undoubtedly be Labour-controlled after May next year. There are still, however, undertones of the SNP. But it is no wonder that the SNP did not do well, and will not do well, in Scotland when neither of its representatives has taken the trouble to attend this debate.
An important point of principle is involved in the Bill. I have a strong feeling of disappointment in the performance of the Government in merely saying that they will give early consideration. I have made some queer Ministerial statements—

Mr. Canavan: Hear, hear.

Mr. Brown: All I would say to my hon Friend is that he should not overdo the idea of all district councils being democratic, because he will be needing our support tomorrow night. It is totally depressing that the Government cannot come clean on a general principle. There is no doubt in the minds of Members on the Opposition Benches that we shall ultimately want to transfer new town resources to the democratically elected local authorities. We know the reasons why the Government cannot come clean. They want to sell off every public asset that they think will bring a return. Is that not right?

Mr. Alexander Fletcher: Of course.

Mr. Brown: Then what is the difficulty? Why cannot the Minister say that they will not transfer these housing assets? The Government are not having a good week. When they have announced cuts in regional aid of £230 million, it is totally irresponsible for a Minister to promise only " early consideration " of a fundamental principle that we have discussed for years.
England and Wales are different from Scotland. I have every respect for East Kilbride district council, but it wants to make the best case, and it is not too worried about accuracy in comparisons with England and Wales. It was the SNP on the council which produced this general argument.

Dr. M. S. Miller: My hon. Friend is not doing us justice.

Mr. Brown: I shall support the Bill.

Dr. Miller: I know, but does not my hon. Friend realise that I acknowledge that there was a difference? The implication of his remarks is that we should have the halfway house of a commission. Why do we need it in Scotland? It was established for England, and the situation has changed; we should benefit from that experience.

Mr. Brown: I am not arguing for a commission; I am saying that the circumstances that led to the legislation are slightly different, and that the new towns in the two countries are different. I never looked on the English experience as a precedent for Scotland.
Six years is not a long time in local government. The Government have been less than forthcoming about their intentions for East Kilbride. Of course this debate is about the sale of private assets. It might have been recognised that the key is the discretion that the Government give local authorities in selling houses. The previous Government had a target of 25 per cent. of houses for sale in new towns. I bet that the present Government will not accept that as a reasonable target.
That is another reason why the Government are not coming clean They do not want to commit themselves to allowing this discretion in new towns, never mind in local authorities. They will have to bring forward those proposals in a few months. That is why they have reneged on another promise
We all know Teddy Taylor. We know what he is. But not one of his friends is here tonight, except for the Minister and one silent Whip. No other Tory Member here tonight knows anything about him. Yet that is the promise that he gave on behalf of the Conservative Party in Scotland. This is our first opportunity to point out that all these broken promises will come home to roost. The Tory Party in Scotland has been discredited, and this is one more piece of evidence—

Mr. Henderson: Mr. Henderson rose—

Mr. Brown: I do not even know who you are.

Mr. Henderson: I do not know who you are, either.

Mr. Brown: That is the hon. Gentleman's misfortune. Even since the general election, public opinion polls have shown a decline in Tory support in Scotland. After a performance such as tonight's, it is no wonder.

Mr. Henderson: Before the hon. Gentleman sits down, perhaps I may put a point to him. It seems to me that one reason why the problems are not as simple as the hon. Gentleman suggests is that when his Government were in power they did not set in train the kind of thinking that was necessary to ensure an orderly transition from, as the hon. Gentleman rightly called it, an undemocratic system to control by the local authorities in the long term. I believe that this is something that has to be done, but I suspect that it was not put in train when the hon Gentleman was in office. It is something that ought to be done on a general basis for all the new towns.

Mr. Brown: Actually, I had sat down, and I shall conclude by dealing with this matter.
I did not want to bring in the devolution argument, but it was a tenable and justifiable proposition for the Government to say " This is a purely domestic housing matter that will be the responsibility of the Assembly in Scotland ". That was accepted in good faith in February of last year by the East Kilbride district council. The Tory Party does not have even that justification for pleading for


delay. I repeat that I did not want to raise that argument, but again on that score the Conservative Party in Scotland is totally discredited.
I hope that there will be support for the Bill. I would not press it, but in the light of the poor statement that we have had from the Government I do not think that we have any option but to vote on this matter tonight.

11.37 p.m.

Mr. James Molyneaux: From a purely selfish point of view it would not be in the interests of those who come from Northern Ireland to prolong this debate, bearing in mind that there are four Northern Ireland orders, with a potential time of one and a half hours each, to follow this debate.
I intervene briefly to support the Bill. First, I do not accept what the Minister said about the relevance of the completion date of the building of the new town of East Kilbride, because in Northern Ireland we had two almost similar corporations, one controlling the development of a city called Craigavon and the other controlling a smaller town called Antrim. The development commission in Craigavon was cut off and abolished when it was in full flight and had completed about half its allotted task. In the case of Antrim, not more than one-third of its target had been achieved when the commission was abolished. Unfortunately, the powers of those two quangoes were not returned, as they ought to have been, to local government, because by that time local government had itself been abolished. The powers were taken under the wing of the Department represented by the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office—the hon. Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi).
We sympathise very much with what our Scottish colleagues have said tonight.

We welcome the growing realisation in the House of the plight into which we who come from Northern Ireland have been plunged and in which we have remained for five or six years. By the abolition of local government we have, as the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Lambie) said, the monstrosity of a housing body about which the Minister will hear more next Monday night, and I invite hon. Members from every party to join us on that occasion, when we shall enlighten them a little further. I shall not trespass on the patience of the Chair by going into that tonight.

We know just what hon. Members who represent new towns are enduring in the way of frustration and in not being able to bring to bear any influence to redress the grievances of their constituents, because constituents do not realise the fine boundary lines between the responsibilities of district councils and new town corporations and the functions of Members of Parliament. In the end the unfortunate Member gets the stick for the failures of all three elements.

We have no wish to make any further comment, but we do not want to encourage the Government to allow our Scottish colleagues to endure the present position. For that reason, I take the liberty of advising my right hon. and hon. Friends to support the Bill and the principle behind it.

Mr. Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Certain specific questions were asked of the Minister to which he may wish to reply. In particular he may wish to comment on the request for an opportunity to discuss these issues.

Question put, That the Bill be now read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 47, Noes 98.

Division No. 64[...]
AYES
[...]11.40 p.m.


Beith, A. J.
Cunningham, George (Islington S)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen North)


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Dalyell, Tam
Lamond, James


Bradford, Rev. R.
Davis, Terry (B'rm'ham, Stechford)
McCartney, Hugh


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Douglas-Mann, Bruce
McKelvey, William


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Dubs, Alfred
McNamara, Kevin


Buchan, Norman
Duffy, A.E. P.
Marshall, David (Gl'sgow.Shettles'n)


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Dunlop, John
Marshall, Jim (Leicester South)


Canavan, Dennis
Eastham, Ken
Martin, Michael (Gl'gow, Springb'rn)


Carmichael, Neil
Evans, John (Newton)
Molyneaux, James


Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)
Grant, George (Morpeth)
O'Halloran, Michael


Cohen, Stanley
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
O'Neill, Martin


Cowans, Harry
Homewood, William
Parry, Robert


Cryer, Bob
Howells, Geraint
Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch (S Down)




Robinson, Peter (Belfast East)
Skinner, Dennis
TELLERS FOR THE AYES


Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)
Stewart, Rt Hon Donald (W Isles)
Dr. M. S. Miller and


Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)
Stott, Roger
Mr. David Lambie.


Ross, Win. (Londonderry)
Strang, Gavin





NOES


Aspinwall, Jack
Hannam, John
Rhodes James, Robert


Berry, Hon Anthony
Hawkins, Paul
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)


Best, Keith
Hawksley, Warren
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Heddle, John
Rossi, Hugh


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Hicks, Robert
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Bright, Graham
Hooson, Tom
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Brinton, Timothy
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Brooke, Hon Peter
Kilfedder, James A.
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge-Br'hills)


Brotherton, Michael
Kitson, Sir Timothy
Shersby, Michael


Buck, Antony
Knight, Mrs Jill
Sims, Roger


Butcher, John
Lang,Ian
Skeet, T. H. H.


Carlisle, John (Luton West)
Lawrence, Ivan
Speller, Tony


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Squire, Robin


Carlisle, Rt Hon Mark (Runcorn)
Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Stanbrook, Ivor


Chapman, Sydney
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Stevens, Martin


Clark, Hon Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
Lyell, Nicholas
Stradling Thomas, J.


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
MacGregor, John
Temple-Morris, Peter


Colvin, Michael
McNair-Wilson, Michael (Newbury)
Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret


Cops, John
Major, John
Thompson, Donald


Cranborne, Viscount
Mather, Carol
Thorne, Neil (llford South)


Dodsworth, Geoffrey
Mayhew, Patrick
Trippier, David


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Morris, Michael (Northampton, Sth)
Waddlngton, David


Dunn, Robert (Dartford)
Morrison, Hon Peter (City of Chester)
Wakeham, John


Emery, Peter
Myles, David
Ward, John


Faith, Mrs Sneila
Nelson, Anthony
Watson, John


Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Newton, Tony
Wheeler, John


Fisher, Sir Nigel
Page, John (Harrow, West)
Wickenden, Keith


Fletcher, Alexander (Edinburgh N)
Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)
Williams, Delwyn (Montgomery)


Fox, Marcus
Patten, Christopher (Bath)
Winterton, Nicholas


Fraser, Peter (South Angus)
Patten, John (Oxford)
Younger, Rt Hon George


Gorst, John
Pawsey, James



Gow, Ian
Pollock, Alexander
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Gower, Sir Raymond
Proctor, K. Harvey
Mr. Barry Henderson and


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Renton, Tim
Mr. John Mackay.

Question accordingly negatived.

Orders of the Day — LONDON TRANSPORT BILL (By Order)

Order for Second Reading read.

Second Reading deferred till Thursday next

Orders of the Day — UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON BILL [Lords] (By Order)

Order for Second Reading read.

Second Reading deferred till Thursday
next

Orders of the Day — NORTHERN IRELAND (PNEUMOCONIOSIS)

11.52 p.m.

The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Hugh Rossi): I beg to move,
That the draft Pneumoconiosis, etc., (Workers' Compensation) (Northern Ireland) Order 1979, which was laid before this House on 9 July, be approved.
Most hon. Members will recall that at the close of the last Parliament approval was given to the Pneumoconiosis etc. (Workers' Compensation) Bill. During the passage of that Bill, assurances were given in both Houses that urgent consideration would be given to enacting similar legislation for Northern Ireland which would be made by Order in Council, subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. In bringing this order before the House tonight the Government accept that similar legislation should be enacted for Northern Ireland.
If hon. Members wish to compare the order which we are now discussing with the corresponding Great Britain Act, they will see that its drafting is somewhat different, but I assure the House that the content is the same, namely to make provision for lump sum payments to certain sufferers of pneumoconiosis, pyssinosis or diffuse mesothelioma in Northern Ireland on a basis comparable to that which applies in Great Britain.
In my briefing notes it is suggested that I might now take the House through each article of the order seriatim and explain its content. However, although the hon. Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Moly-neaux) is anxious that we spend one and a half hours on each of the orders coming before us tonight, I am not sure that that is necessarily the wish of each and every one of us, so if the House will permit me I shall draw attention to certain key provisions of the order. I shall do the same in respect of the other orders that we have to consider and perhaps make progress in that way.
The main article—article 3—provides that those disabled by the industrial diseases to which I have referred may submit a claim for compensation to the Department of Manpower Services for Northern Ireland. It further provides that where the Department is satisfied it shall pay to the claimant the prescribed sum.
The article also specifies the conditions that must be fulfilled before payment may be made. The conditions, briefly, are that the claimant has been admitted to disablement benefit suffering from one of the diseases that I have mentioned; secondly, that there is no employer against whom a claim for damages may be made, and, thirdly, that he has not yet brought an action for damages or received a court settlement. The object of the order is to enable compensation to be paid where industrial diseases have been incurred and where there is absence of a court remedy.
The order continues to deal with appeal on points of law, to enable the Department to reconsider the matter where there have been changes of circumstances and generally to provide for the protection of the claimant in an orderly and proper way.
The sums of compensation to be paid are not mentioned in the order. Article 11 provides for the making of regulations and for the procedure to be adopted. Payment will be made by one lump sum. That will reflect, as a court order for damages, the degree of pain and suffering experienced by the claimant, the average rate of progression of the disease and elements of loss of earnings. It follows that the younger the claimant and the greater the disability the larger will be the amount of compensation subect to an intended maximum of £10,000.
I suspect that few hon. Members will need reminding how distressing pneumoconiosis is. It occurs as a result of inhaling certain types of dust. It develops gradually and continues to do so after contact with the dust has ceased. There have been cases where the disease has appeared about 20 years after first contact with the dust.
The predominant symptom of the advanced state of the disease is an extreme shortness of breath caused by lack of oxygen getting to the blood stream because of damage to lung tissues. That makes the slightest exertion, even gentle walking, a painful effort. In the worst cases sufferers are confined to bed and are kept alive only by drugs, oxygen and, frequently, devoted nursing by wives and other relatives.
Although the disease is normally associated with occupations such as coal mining and slate quarrying, a similar disease


—byssinosis—can affect textile workers from the inhalation of cotton or flax dust. The provisions of the order are very relevant to Northern Ireland, where a once prosperous textile industry has over the years been contracting.
The situation in Northern Ireland is like that which applies to certain slate quarrying areas of Wales, where sufferers have been unable to seek compensation by suing the employer concerned because the employer is out of business. The indications are that there are about 30 persons in Northern Ireland who would stand to benefit from the provisions of the order.
I am confident that the order, like the Great Britain Act, will receive the wholehearted support of the House. I know that hon. Members will wish to ensure that sufferers from these diseases, or their surviving dependants in Northern Ireland will be equally eligible for compensation as are sufferers elsewhere in the United Kingdom. I have no hesitation in recommending the order to the House.

11.58 p.m.

Mr. Brynmor John: Someone coming from my part of the world can be expected both to know about the pain and suffering that pneumoconiosis and associated diseases cause and to be sympathetic towards the sufferers.
Although, for understandable reasons, the Government have not gone through the usual process of consultation, I give the order a wholehearted welcome on behalf of the Opposition. It seems to be a humanitarian gesture and one that will benefit perhaps 30 sufferers at this stage, although I ask the Minister to estimate whether there are others who may come forward at a later stage to make a claim. I suspect that there is not a great awareness of the provisions of this measure.
The order is thoroughly worth while. The Great Britain scheme had all-party support and I hope that the order will likewise receive all-party support. I wish it well in the remaining few minutes of its passage.

12 midnight

Mr. Robert J. Bradford: We on the Official Unionist Bench welcome this Northern Ireland order for the obvious reason that many

people in Northern Ireland involved in the textile industry will benefit from its provisions.
There are one or two questions that I should like to put to the Minister. He referred to the linen industry. I wonder whether there is any basis for the belief that those involved in the man-made fibre industry might also contract this disease. If so, it will mean that the order will have wide application in Northern Ireland, where approximately one-third of the textile industry of the United Kingdom is situated.
It has been the custom to send some people who have applied for the pneumoconiosis payment to Scotland for a medical examination. I wonder what necessitates the examination there, and whether it is envisaged that future applicants will have to make that journey. There may be a simple reason for this. It might be good if the Minister explained why that has been the experience of at least some applicants.
Although normally we should not look favourably upon the procedure adopted here—that of the absence of a draft order and the normal consultative period—all hon. Members on both sides of the House appreciate that this is a pressing matter. Certainly we should not be so churlish as to make this an opportunity to object to certain short cuts being taken in procedure, as long as they do not materially affect the composition of the Bill or the provisions in the order.

12.2 a.m.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: It is somewhat ironical that there should be no representative of the remains of Plaid Cymru in the House tonight. After all this was the sop thrown to them amidst the last desperate efforts of the late Administration to retain some sort of a majority in this House. It was, so to speak, if not their lifeline, at any rate their pipeline. In this they were more fortunate than some of the rest of us in that very differently composed House of Commons: we have not yet got our pipeline, although we shall get it, whereas—to the general satisfaction—the Welshmen have their Pneumoconiosis, etc (Workers' Compensation) Act.
The Minister of State handsomely made out the case that this was not a Welsh measure. It is not a measure for any one


part of the United Kingdom. It is—and ought to be—a United Kingdom measure.
We are told in the explanatory memorandum, which accompanied the draft order, that it was brought forward not by the accelerated procedure but with the omission of the " proposal stage " in order
 to match as closely as possible the operative date for the Great Britain legislation.
I should like to inquire a little more closely exactly how that comes about.
The Pneumoconiosis etc. (Workers' Compensation) Act, which is a Great Britain Act, comes into force, according to section 10,
 on the expiration of a period of three months beginning from the day on which it is passed.
It was passed on 4 April so presumably it " came into force " on 4 July.
In that case the hope of the Minister of State—which he expressed in a letter of 5 July, to my hon. Friends and myself and others—that it would come into force at the same time as in Great Britain, might appear not to be fulfilled. However, I am not sure that the date of " coming into force " is the operative date for the purposes of those who we all hope will benefit from this legislation; for we find in the Act that regulations have to be made—these were referred to by the Minister of State—prescribing, among other things, the form of application, and also the maximum sums and the gradation of sums that will be payable under the Act. So it appears that until those regulations have been made and approved—for I think they are subject to affirmative procedure under the Great Britain Act—the legislation will not in Great Britain, be in effect in the natural sense of the term. There must be the regulations, and those must have been approved, before claims can be admitted or sums can be paid out.
There is to be a corresponding procedure for Northern Ireland, both as regards coming into operation and as regards the prescription of the particulars to which I have just referred. Article 1 of the order provides that the order is to
 come into operation on such day or days as the Head of the Department may by order appoint.
I fear that at this moment, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you may be detecting a rather

familiar trend in these observations, for I have to acquaint those who have not been through this mill so often before that that reference to the " Head of the Department " is entirely misleading. There is no such thing at the moment as " the Head of a Department " in the sense in which that appears in the order, because these orders, for reasons which can be examined at greater length on another occasion, apparently have to be drawn on the assumption that the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973, which is no longer in force—and which its most devoted former admirers do not suppose will ever be in force again—were actually in force at the moment. They are drawn in terms of a non-existent constitution, never popular, which came to a sticky conclusion and is now in abeyance. Still, there is no doubt that regulations will be required—statutory rules, I imagine, and not subject to any parliamentary procedure at all—to implement the effect of the Act in Northern Ireland.
I want to inquire just a little further—this has a wider application than the present order and is a matter of great importance, obviously, to those whom we represent in Northern Ireland—into this question of simultaneity; for I am sure everyone would agree that, if benefits are to be improved or payments are to be provided under legislation which is basically the same in both parts of the kingdom, they ought to be law simultaneously and to be effective simultaneously.
This is a point which was brought out a few months ago by a report of an excellent official, who performs in Northern Ireland single-handed the function of the Scrutiny Committee on Statutory Instruments in Great Britain—the Examiner of Statutory Instruments. He drew attention to the fact that there was a hiccup between the making of regulations in Great Britain and the making of the corresponding regulations applying to Northern Ireland under the principle of parity.
I hope that the resultant arrangements have been brought to the attention of the new Ministers; for I am sure that they would wish to ensure that they were implemented, and maybe this will be the first case in point for the practice of it. The locus classicus on the case is a letter from the right hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) dated 27 February


1979, in which he announced—the letter is addressed to me, but it is a public document—the arrangements which were thenceforward to be made to ensure the simultaneous making of regulations in matters such as this on both sides of the Irish Sea.
The Minister wrote:
 With a view to ensuring that GB instruments and the corresponding NI rules can, wherever possible, be made on the same day 
—that is what I hope the Minister of State can assure us will happen in this case—
 arrangements have been made whereby, as soon as my Department 
—that is, the Great Britain Department—
 determine to draft an instrument, the draftsman and those who will be responsible for processing the instrument will ascertain the name and telephone number of the official in Belfast who is to be responsible for the correspanding NI rule. This will make it possible for the information required quickly, for example that the instrument has been signed, and as to any minor corrections made on the proof, to arrive at the point in Belfast where it is needed more rapidly than the post can carry or an official can travel 
—that must be nearly the speed of light—
 In addition, where time is of the essence and the alterations are too extensive or complex to be safely or conveniently imparted by telephone, we propose to make use of the Mufax facilities in the Northern Ireland office.
I do not know whether the Minister of State has yet made the acquaintance of that facility. If he has done so, I hope that he will acquaint the House more particularly with the nature of that remarkable instrument, which transmits vital pieces of information even faster than an official can travel or a telephone can work —though that is, admittedly, sometimes not very fast either in Northern Ireland or between here and Northern Ireland. The Minister went on in his letter:
 I hope that these new arrangements will achieve the result we all wish to see.
That is something which I am sure we would all commend to the attention of the Minister of State.
It took a good deal of trouble on the part of many people and a great deal of good will on the part of many officials and several Departments to arrive at the understanding and mechanism whereby in future we hope to have what should go without saying, namely, simultaneity of

application of beneficial law on both sides of the Irish Sea.
Obviously the sums and the conditions must be uniform throughout the kingdom. We hope to see them speedily in force and we hope to see them, not only in this case but in all similar subsequent cases, promptly and simultaneously authorised on both sides of the Irish Sea.

12.14 a.m.

Mr. James Kilfedder: I welcome the order. It is a humanitarian, worthy and necessary measure.
I do not intend to join in the criticisms of other hon. Members from Northern Ireland. My question is, why has it taken so long for a measure of such merit to come before the House? As the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) said, the credit for the order lies not with the present Government or their predecessors but with the hon. Members representing Plaid Cymru, who were given it as a sop to encourage them to save the life of the previous Government.
I do not intend to take this opportunity to ask the right hon. Member for Down, South about the position of his group of hon. Members in relation to the sop of the previous Government that was taken up by the hon. Member for Armagh (Mr. McCusker) and the former Member for Belfast, North, Mr Carson.
I wonder whether the pneumoconiosis order will help about 30 people in Northern Ireland. I fear that because of the large number of people involved in the cotton, woollen and linen textile industry many may not be aware that their illness is brought about through having worked years before in factories producing textiles. I hope that the Minister will do his best to make sure that people in Northern Ireland are given every opportunity of having their cases studied by the medical authorities and that every attempt is made to help them.
I should like to take up the criticism of the right hon. Member for Down, South, that the order is drawn on the assumption that the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973 is still in force. That Act is in abeyance. He and his colleagues are all in favour of direct rule and total integration. They want all laws to apply throughout the United Kingdom —[HON. MEMBERS: " Hear, hear."]—I


can hear their echoes of " Hear, hear: However, when the previous Labour Government tried to bring a measure of justice to spouses in Northern Ireland whose marriages had come to end, they fought it bitterly. They did not want that Act to apply to Northern Ireland. They speak a great deal of rubbish, and their hypocrisy must be exposed.

The Deptuy Speaker (Mr. Bryant God-man Irvine): Order. The hon. Member should return to the order.

Mr. Kilfedder: I did not think that I had departed too far from the remarks of the right hon. Member for Down, South. As his speech had not been interrupted. I thought I could follow his comments.
The people of Northern Ireland would wish me to thank the Government for introducing the order. We want the reestablishment of a Stormont Parliament, and that opportunity must be kept alive. This is a worthy measure. I congratulate this Government and the previous one and also the Welsh national party on having originated it.

12.18 a.m.

Mr. Rossi: I thank the House for the general welcome that it has given to the useful and, I hope, helpful order. Having welcomed the order and congratulated the Government on bringing it forward, hon. Members proceeded to chide me. On the one hand, my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Down, North (Mr. Kilfedder) and the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) chided me for not bringing it forward quickly enough. On the other, the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Mr. John) and the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Mr. Bradford) chided me for not having gone through the usual proposal procedure, which would have delayed the matter ever further.
Suffice it to say that when we took office we found that Northern Ireland sufferers of pneumoconiosis and their dependants did not enjoy the advantages of compensation under the legislation passed immediately before the election. We took the view that they should enjoy these benefits. We therefore took steps as quickly as we could, given the hiccups caused by the election and the demands on a parliamentary timetable, to bring the

matter forward. For that reason, I hope that the House and Northern Ireland hon. Members will forgive us for not going through the ordinary proposal procedures.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: The Minister must have misunderstood or misheard me. I and my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, South (Mr. Bradford) expressed approval of the fact that the omission of a proposal stage had taken place.

Mr. Rossi: Obviously I misunderstood the right hon. Gentleman. I thought that he was suggesting that it should have been brought forward in time to be enacted by 4 July. The right hon. Member then asked me whether I was aware of the workings of the Mufax simultaneous machine, which would have ensured this marvellous process. I have seen this machine in operation. I have seen it in Whitehall, spewing out a long stream of blotting paper of scarcely legible print, and I have been assured that simultaneously, the material was being fed into a similar machine in Belfast.
The right hon. Member and the hon. Member for Down, North will forgive me if I do not become involved at this stage in the wider constitutional issues that have been raised. These are matters that the Government will have to consider carefully. The right hon. Gentleman raised matters of integration by implication in the way that he presented the defects that he sees in the present methods of bringing forward legislation affecting Northern Ireland. Other hon. Members feel that integration is not the right solution, and that there should be a form of devolved government. I am not going to be drawn on this issue while I am dealing with pneumoconiosis. Certainly in time the Government will have to form a view and discuss these very important matters with the House, but I do not think that tonight is the time to do so.
I have been asked a number of detailed questions about the order. I mentioned 30 sufferers. That is the best estimate that we have been given by our advisers of the number known or likely to be suffering from this disease. We shall make known the operation of the order as soon as it is enacted. We shall give it as wide publicity as we can, and we hope that people who have been victims of this disease will come forward with their claims.
I was asked whether there was an application to man-made fibres. I believe not, but I am not sure. I shall check and write to the hon. Member for Belfast, South, who raised the matter. Similarly, I shall check on questions of sending people to Scotland for medical tests. It may well be that we do not have the equipment or the medical expertise at present in Northern Ireland, and the nearest facilities are in Scotland.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Before the Minister sits down, will he deal with the coming into effect of the Act in Britain, and the order in Northern Ireland? Will he confirm whether that is dependent on the making of the regulations to which he referred, prescribing the sums and the methods of making application, and so on?

Mr. Rossi: The Great Britain order came into effect on 4 July. Obviously this order cannot come into effect on that date. It is subject to affirmative resolution and the moment this House approves the matter and it is dealt with in another place, it will come into effect. The regulations are subject to negative resolution, because they are governed by article 2 of the Interpretation Act 1954, which turns an affirmative procedure into negative procedure for this House. The affirmative procedure relates to the position that would exist were there an Assembly, which there is not.

Mr. Powell: I apologise for pressing the point, but it may be a matter of importance to the people concerned. Have the corresponding regulations prescribing the sums, and so on, been made for Great Britain, and is it not the case that, although those regulations have been made on the one side and on the other, claims cannot be entertained and payments cannot be made?

Mr. Rossi: I received one nod and two shakes of the head from the Box. I cannot give the right hon. Gentleman the answer to that question. Again, if I may, I will write to him about it.

Mr. George Grant: I welcome this measure. I do not want to get involved in the controversies of politics in Northern Ireland, or, indeed, in the Welsh side of the story under the Labour Government, but having been a miner I have personal experience of the human suffering in the mining areas. In my opinion, my father died from pneumoconiosis, and I saw him die a terrible death. I therefore welcome this measure for what it means to the few people concerned in Northern Ireland.
The National Union of Mineworkers was the first to bring such a measure forward. Previously, the matter had to go through the courts and the difficulty was in proving negligence on the part of the employer. Whilst pneumoconiosis can be proved only by X-ray, the most eminent people in the medical profession will be the first to admit that radiography is not a true and sincere test of the existence of pneumoconiosis. I therefore ask the Government to look favourably at the recent reports on the question of consideration of compensation for emphysema and bronchitis. I welcome this measure and am pleased to have been able to take part in the debate.

Mr. Rossi: By leave of the House, I should like to convey to the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) some information that has now come into my possession and which might be helpful to him. I am informed that the regulations under the Great Britain Act will be laid before the House in the autumn, and therefore we hope that our Mufax system will enable us in Northern Ireland to be in step with Great Britain, and the two things can then go forward together.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the draft Pneumoconiosis, etc., (Workers' Compensation) (Northern Ireland) Order 1979, which was laid before this House on 9 July, be approved.

Orders of the Day — NORTHERN IRELAND (INHERITANCE)

12.28 a.m.

The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Hugh Rossi): I beg to move,
That the draft Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) (Northern Ireland) Order 1979, which was laid before this House on 22 March 1979 in the last Parliament, be approved.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant God-man Irvine): I understand that it will be convenient to consider at the same time the following motion,
That the draft Capital Transfer Tax (Northern Ireland Consequential Amendment) Order 1979, which was laid before this House on 22 March 1979 in the last Parliament, be approved.

Mr. Rossi: That is so, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The capital transfer tax order is a minor order, consequential upon the inheritance order.
The inheritance order will change the law relating to claims on a person's property after death and will extend to Northern Ireland provisions similar in most respects to those contained in the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975. The law on inheritance is at present contained in the Inheritance (Family Provision) Act (Northern Ireland) 1960, as amended by the Family Provision Act (Northern Ireland) 1969.
Experience has demonstrated that the present law needs to be changed in a number of respects. There are, in particular, two important areas in which it is unsatisfactory. First, the existing legislation does not permit applications by a number of persons who might have been dependent on a deceased person prior to his death; for example, a son over 21 years of age receiving full-time education, or a person who, whilst not related to the deceased, was nevertheless maintained by him or her. Secondly, under the new Northern Ireland divorce law, the Matrimonial Causes (Northern Ireland) Order 1978, a spouse who obtains a divorce could, as things stand, be better off than one who survived his or her marriage partner and was not adequately provided for in that partner's will.
In 1974, in its " Second Report on Family Property: Family Provision on

Death ", the Law Commission recommended legislation for England and Wales to remedy these and other deficiencies, and as a result the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act was passed. This has apparently worked well in England and Wales. The order contains similar provisions for Northern Ireland but incorporates some additional points, a number of which result from the very helpful suggestions received by the Officer of Law Reform during the consultative period on the original proposal—for which we are most grateful—and others of which are designed to harmonise the new legislation with other related Northern Ireland enactments.
The most important provisions of the order are contained in articles 2 and 3. They deal with the two areas of difficulty requiring correction, to which I have just referred. I hope that the House, again, will not ask me to go separately through all the remaining, generally highly technical legal articles. I should draw attention specifically to article 4, since it gives greater powers and more flexibility to the court in making orders when it is satisfied that reasonable provision has not been made for an applicant, and thus, in effect, altering the distribution of the deceased's estate from what would otherwise have taken place. The court may order periodic payments, lump-sum payments, the transfer of specific property to an applicant, the settlement of specific property for the benefit of an applicant, the purchase of property for an applicant and the variation of certain settlements for the benefit of an applicant.
Article 5 sets out the matters that the court must take into account in deciding whether an applicant is entitled to an order and, if so, what type of order is appropriate. Amongst these are the present and future needs and resources of the applicant, the needs and resources of other persons who would be likely to be affected by the making of an order and, generally, any other relevant matter, including the conduct of the applicant.
I turn now to the Capital Transfer Tax (Northern Ireland Consequential Amendment) Order 1979. This minor consequential order, which will be made under section 38(2) of the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973, will ensure that the Finance Act 1974 will operate in relation to Northern Ireland court orders


in the same way as it does in relation to court orders in England and Wales. Section 122 of the Finance Act 1976 ensures that the effect of a court order made under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 is followed for capital transfer tax purposes. Thus, for example, where the court orders that provision should be made out of the deceased's estate for his surviving spouse the effect of section 122 is that the capital transfer tax exemption applies.
The inheritance order, we believe, will help to relieve hardship and injustice. I have pleasure in commending both orders to the House.

12.35 a.m.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: As the Minister of State has indicated, this order reproduces, in effect, for Northern Ireland the Act of 1975 in England and Wales. The hon. Gentleman referred to there being some differences between the two. I shall mention one of those differences, but, broadly speaking, when one compares the order with the 1975 enactment, they are very similar and run on closely parallel lines, even to details of drafting.
The 1975 Act carried further a process that had already been in operation of modifying the effect of the intestacy laws or the force of disposition by will so as to accord with a view to what was public policy as seen by the Legislature. The extent to which this legislation overrides the intentions of a testator is far-reaching. It would not be right for us to be unaware to what extent statute law now renders of no effect the wishes of the deceased as laid down in a testament. For example, under article 4(2), it is possible for a court order to provide for payments equal to the whole of the income of the net estate of the deceased, so that an order can divert the entire estate to different purposes from that which, either under the law of intestacy or under the will of the deceased, it would have been devoted.
Again—I refer almost at random—article 14 says that the court, in deciding whether to make an order, has to take into account the intention of the testator in making dispositions which an order would override. It says that the court needs to be of the opinion
 that, on a balance of probabilities the intention of the deceased (though not necessarily

his sole intention) in making the disposition or contract was to prevent an order for financial provision being made under this Order or to reduce the amount of the provision which might otherwise be granted by an order thereunder.
Those two examples illustrate the extent to which we are now using statutes to lay down what one might almost describe as the social obligation of testators and to set aside their wishes as expressed by their will and testament or alternatively to set aside what would otherwise be the destination of an estate under the intestacy law.
I believe this supersession of testamentary disposition by public interest legislation accords with a change in social habits and reflects a modern, as opposed to an earlier point of view on the rights of property. This being so, Northern Ireland should be covered by the provisions of the 1975 Act for England and Wales. Scotland has a different system of law: we are talking in this instance of accommodation to England and Wales law, not to Great Britain law.
Three-and-a-half years have passed in which relatives and widows in England and Wales have had the advantages which this House thought right to confer upon them by the 1975 legislation, while widows in identical circumstances in Northern Ireland have not. There is a considerable backlog which this order helps to clear, of legislation passed by this House in the earlier years of this decade which self-evidently should have been United Kingdom, or England, Wales and Northern Ireland legislation, but which was passed as England and Wales legislation and lacked a corresponding provision for Northern Ireland in the view, not unnaturally held in the flux of 1974 and 1975, that it was premature to foresee how the corresponding legislative provision should be made for Northern Ireland.
However, now at last the Government have got around to using the machinery of Order in Council virtually to duplicate the England and Wales provisions and to apply them to Northern Ireland. So we are entitled to inquire whether anything has been learnt from the working of the 1975 Act in England and Wales which could be turned to advantage in the application of that legislation to Northern Ireland. In making that query I have very


much in mind the Matrimonial Causes Order of 1978 which was referred to just now by the hon. Member for Down, North (Mr. Kilfedder), who was apparently under the impression that it had been opposed by my hon. Friends and myself.
The fact, which should be on the record, is that we supported that order but that in the course of the proposal stage through which it passed we were able to persuade the Government to make a considerable number of improvements which brought it more closely into line with opinion in Northern Ireland on the matter of matrimonial law. So that was a case in point of the use of the " proposals procedure " in handling these draft orders. It was undoubtedly an instance where legislation for Northern Ireland was the better for the experience which had been gained of the working of the corresponding provisions in England and Wales and for the scrutiny to which the draft order was subjected before it came before this House.
There is one respect—perhaps it is one of the points which the Minister of State had in mind—in which the Northern Ireland order differs from the 1978 Act. That is in the powers given to the county courts, which we very much welcome, to deal with cases in which the total sums involved are relatively small. At the time of the 1974 Act, the upper limit of the sum which could be fixed for that purpose as invoking the jurisdiction of the county courts was £5,000. Four years later, in the Northern Ireland order, the figure is £15,000, having accommodated itself, no doubt, to the inflation of the intervening years, and perhaps making some allowance for inflation in the years to come. So in that respect we have the advantage in Northern Ireland that the county courts, which are undoubtedly a convenient recourse for persons needing such orders, and will be widely used, I would imagine, in Northern Ireland in these circumstances, can operate over a wider field than at present they can do in England and Wales.
The fact remains that it is far from ideal that in matters of this sort, where there is really a negligible difference in the existing law on both sides of the Irish Sea, legislation should take place in two parts, separated by a period of several years.
I want to refer finally, as did the Minister of State, to the consequential order, the capital transfer tax order, which introduces a reference to this order into the modification of section 122 of the Finance Act 1976. The necessity of the capital transfer tax order is a reminder of the far-reaching consequences of the court orders that can be made under this legislation. Orders made under this legislation can divert the sums passing from an estate into an entirely different pattern from that which was contemplated in the will of the deceased.
One effect of that different pattern, as this consequential order reminds us, is that the incidence of capital transfer tax could be completely altered, because the position as between the testator and the beneficiary for the purposes of capital transfer tax could well be quite different in the case envisaged by the testator from the result produced by the court order made under the main order before the House. I think that it would probably be helpful to those who may be involved in these matters if, in winding up the debate, or in any explanatory matter that accompanies this order, the Minister of State could arrange for reference to be made to the way in which these difficulties will work out in practice.
One appreciates that the powers in the substantive order cannot be invoked after the lapse of six months, not from the decease but from the taking out of representation for the purposes of administration of the estate. That to some extent limits the confusion that could occur, but anyone who as a trustee or as an executor has had to deal with an estate where the application of the capital gains tax legislation is apparently of the most simple will readily imagine the difficulties that will arise if the provisions of the will are altered by court order—they can be altered by a series of successive orders—under the enactment which the House is considering.
This is no small matter which is discovered by the minor consequential order which the Minister has brought forward. Those concerned with the administration of estates will have to face additional difficulties as a result of this relieving legislation; and if their way can be smoothed or assisted, it would be worth doing.

12.48 a.m.

Mr. Rossi: I think that I ought to make one point in answer to the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) in case a mistaken impression is taken outside the House.
It would be wrong to present the order as nullifying wills and rendering them of no effect. That would be a bad and misleading impression to create. The court has power under this order to make alterations to the dispositions in a will where there has patently been some kind of injustice because somebody dependent for a long time upon the testator has been excluded, inadvertently or because of some perverse whim, from the protection that he should, in justice, have from the testator.
This is not a novel proposition, not even for Northern Ireland, because the 1960 Act provided for maintenance for spouses who were excluded from testators' wills and the 1969 Act provided that lump sum payments could be made. This has been a feature of Northern Ireland law for some considerable time, and the main purpose of the order is to ensure that the spouse of a deceased person shall not be put in a worse position than the divorced wife of a deceased person under the matrimonial law because of the general provisions as to alimony, even after death, that can be made under the divorce laws.
It is really an operation to tidy up and to extend the classes of dependants who would otherwise be excluded, because the law has shown itself not to be adequate to protect these people.
The right hon. Member for Down, South asked about the experience in England and Wales. The Lord Chancellor is content with the operation of this legislation in England and Wales since 1975. We hope that there will be a similar happy experience in Northern Ireland.
I must emphasise that simply because a claim is made it does not follow that an order will ensue to alter the effects of a will. The legislation gives the court a wide discretion to examine all the circumstances in which the will was made, the attitude of the testator, the relationship of the claimants, the life they lead together, and the conduct of the appli-

cant—who may deserve to be excluded from the will. All those matters will be taken into account. We hope that a just and impartial decision will result. I hope that the order will be accepted.
The right hon. Member for Down, South said that there could be unfortunate consequences involving capital transfer tax. Perhaps an original will is drawn up carefully by astute lawyers in order to minimise the effects of captial transfer tax. The right hon. Gentleman can be assured that the judges will be well seized of the point. My experience is that the judges are not anxious to deny beneficiaries or to advantage the Inland Revenue or the Chancellor of the Exchequer at the expense of beneficiaries.
I hope that my words will be heard beyond the Chamber. I am confident that judges, when exercising their discretion, will bear in mind the interests of the people who benefit from a will or from the alterations made in a will.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: The Minister could have been understood to say that the tax effects of a proposed order would be one of the considerations taken into account by the court in deciding whether to make that order. I do not know whether he intended to say that, but it is an important statement.

Mr. Rossi: In practice, I think that that is what happens. It is important. We shall try to draw attention to any difficulties that might arise. I hope that that satisfies the right hon. Gentleman.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved.
That the draft Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) (Northern Ireland) Order 1979, which was laid before this House on 22 March 1979 in the last Parliament; be approved.

Orders of the Day — NORTHERN IRELAND (CAPITAL TRANSFER TAX)

Resolved,
That the draft Capital Transfer Tax (Northern Ireland Consequential Amendment) Order 1979, which was laid before this House on 22 March 1979 in the last Parliament, be approved.—[Mr. Rossi.]

Orders of the Day — NORTHERN IRELAND (TATTOOING OF MINORS)

12.53 a.m.

The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Hugh Rossi): I beg to move,
That the draft Tattooing of Minors (Northern Ireland) Order 1979, which was laid before this House on 28 June, be approved.
This short but useful order makes provision for Northern Ireland similar to that made for the rest of the United Kingdom by the Tattooing of Minors Act 1969, which prohibits the tattooing of persons under the age of 18. I have no doubt that the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) will ask why it has taken so long for the order to be presented to the House. I can only say that I was not responsible for anything that happened before 7 May this year.
This matter has a long history. There was an attempt by the former Assembly, in 1974 I think, to bring forward a provision of this kind. However, when the Assembly ceased to be that measure disappeared also.

Mr. James Molyneaux: Perhaps we can put the Minister's mind at rest. We are not complaining on this issue because we recognise that we have always suffered from not exactly jet lag but time lag in Northern Ireland, where the Stormont Parliament and Government rubber stamped and produced an almost identical measure year after year roughly 12 months after the corresponding Great Britain measure.

Mr. Rossi: I have noted the hon. Gentleman's comment. I hope that he will welcome the fact that after a lapse of about 10 years the Government have decided to bring forward a measure for Northern Ireland which may be of some help to people in the Province.
The hon. Member for Belfast, South (Mr. Bradford) initiated the revival of this forgotten measure in Northern Ireland by a question that he asked in July 1978 about what had happened to it. That started the processes that have resulted in the measure coming before the House this evening.
The position in Northern Ireland is that there are no restrictions on the age at which a person may be tattooed. Many

young people have had themselves tattooed and have lived to regret it. The obvious problem, for example, is of a social relationship in later life when a particular female name may be discovered by someone else.
Also, there has been a tendency for sectarian or political slogans to be tattooed, and these can cause embarrassment when youngsters grow older. They could even put the personal safety of these young people at risk.
It is not easy to have tattoos removed. The only effective method is by plastic surgery. The process is delicate and expensive, and can involve treatment spread over many weeks. Waiting lists for plastic surgery are long and the removal of tattoos has had to be restricted to essential cases; for example, where the tattoo involves a risk to the wearer or stops him from obtaining a job.
During the three-year period ending 1978, 298 operations were performed in Northern Ireland for the removal of tattoos, 11 on persons under 15 and 26 on persons between the ages of 15 and 19. This is obviously an area in which prevention is better than cure. I believe that we have a duty to ensure that youngsters are not exposed to the difficulties that I have mentioned.
Article 4 of the order contains two exceptions. First, a minor may be tattooed for medical reasons, by or under the direction of a medical practitioner, showing that he or she has a rare blood group or suffers from diabetes or some such matter that requires signalling in case of need. The second exception is that a person will not be guilty of an offence under the order if he tattoos a minor whom he reasonably believes to be 18 or over.
I hope that the measure will prevent many from doing something which they may come to regret for the rest of their lives, and accordingly I commend it to the House.

1 a.m.

Mr. Robert J. Bradford: No one should misunderstand the importance of the order because of its brevity. As the Minister said, this is an important matter which has a direct bearing on the lives of a considerable number of young people in Northern Ireland.
I thank the Minister for his kind comments about the way in which I initiated the issue, but I wish to take the opportunity to say that it was because of the encouragement given by the then Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the hon. Member for Liverpool, Kirkdale (Mr. Dunn), that one was moved to pursue the matter.
Our gratitude should be extended to the Minister for seizing the opportunity to bring legislation in Northern Ireland into line with that in the rest of the United Kingdom. I am sure that my right hon. and hon. Friends wish to be associaed with that word of gratitude.
I feel that two areas of concern should be raised in this short debate. First, I think it right to rehearse something of the problem itself. When this legislation was introduced in Great Britain by the then Member for Sowerby, Mr. Max Madden, he was able to cite a number of instances where dermatologists in his area had to treat about 200 teenagers who had had tattoos put upon their person. Some of these young people had to have plastic surgery to have the marks removed lest their lives were to be affected from that point onward.
The Minister has given us figures relating to Northern Ireland. The consultant dermatologist at the teaching hospital in Belfast, the Royal Victoria hospital, views as serious the problem of tattooing among teenagers, and it was in consultation with him that I raised the matter some months ago.
The problem has two aspects. First, there are what I suppose one can call the epidermic considerations, that is, relating to the whole question of the marks which sometimes cannot be obliterated and in which, as the Minister suggested, certain associations and motives are sometimes linked with what is put upon the skin.
Secondly—I was not aware of this until I spoke to the present Minister for Health —there is what one might call the endodermis consideration, that is the small and unkempt type of tatoo shop where one can contract serious disease in the course of having a tattoo put upon one's person. I understand from the Minister for Health, who is himself a physician, that some of the most serious antisocial diseases can ensue from the kind

of operation that goes on in small and unkempt tattoo shops.
The problem, therefore, is clear, and this measure will help to obviate it in the Province.
I turn next to the question of penalties. Does the Minister of State feel that the method of summary conviction and the related fine of a sum not exceeding £400 is the best provision to adopt? There has been experience now for 10 years in the rest of the United Kingdom. Have substantial fines been applied to those who break the law in this respect? I understand that the profits from this practice are considerable. It would be interesting to know the level of fines current in this part of the United Kingdom. If they have been geared to the minimum rather than to the maximum of £400, there may be something to be said for stipulating a particular fine for a first offence and a higher amount for second and subsequent offences. I merely ask for clarification on penalties.
I welcome the order and thank the Minister for introducing it. I assure him that any mild criticism, either in the course of this short debate or in any other, is not meant to be obstructive.

1.5 a.m.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: I hope that the Minister of State will not get a persecution complex over the timelag between Great Britain and Northern Ireland legislation. However, with this order we have a classic specimen of some of the unfortunate consequences of a considerable interval between virtually the same enactments in the two parts of the United Kingdom.
In 1969 there was a maximum fine of £50 for the first offence and £100 for the second or subsequent. Now, 10 years later, we have in Northern Ireland a maximum fine of £400 for the first offence. So if a person tattoos a minor on this side of the Irish Sea it can cost him £50 the first time, whereas if he does that on the other side of the Irish Sea it can cost him £400 the first time. This is nonsense and should be recognised as such. It shows that legislation which inherently ought to apply to all parts of the United Kingdom, as this measure clearly should, ought so to apply from the outset. Whatever the machinery used, legislation


should apply to the whole of the kingdom, if and so long as it is a United Kingdom.
In 1969 that could not be done because the subject involved was a transferred subject. However, it can be done now. As the Minister of State will gradually learn, there are different modes, of varying complexity, for securing simultaneous legislation for the whole of the United Kingdom. It should now be accepted that, unless there are strong reasons to the contrary, we should in future, when we legislate on subjects that affect all parts of the United Kingdom, legislate in the same way and legislate simultaneously.

1.7 a.m.

Mr. James Kilfedder: I, too, wish to welcome the order.
The hon. Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux), by implication or directly, was critical of the former Stormont Government for introducing legislation about 12 months after similar legislation had been introduced in Great Britain. I find that surprising. It may be true, but I find that criticism surprising. There was little criticism from the Official Unionist Party of the Unionist Government at Stormont. Indeed, it was all for making differences in some areas of legislation.
I am worried about one matter and I do not suppose that the Government will be able to do very much, apart from education. I am concerned about young people who tattoo themselves or their friends. I know of one instance where a young chap had a tattoo applied to his hand by means of a needle and Indian ink. That left a permanent mark on his hand. Something more might be done to educate young people about the dangers of applying tattoos.
If something can be done to help young people to remove tattoos from their hands and arms, I hope that the Government will be prepared to help by making better provisions for the operations to take place, if necessary by providing finance so that the operations can be carried out as quickly ns possible.

1.10 a.m.

Mr. Rossi: A number of questions have been raised. The first was raised by the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Mr. Bradford) on the penalties and the differences between Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
The Tattooing of Minors Act 1969 provides a maximum fine of £50 for a first offence and £100 for a second or subsequent offence. Subject to correction, I believe that the Criminal Law Act 1977 had the effect of upgrading the penalties. It did so right the way through the whole of criminal law legislation to bring them in line with the modern or current value of money. In this order we reflect the present situation in Great Britain.
There is a degree of flexibility in this sense. There are no separate higher or smaller penalties depending on first or second offences. The matter is left entirely to the discretion of the court with the much heavier maximum of £400.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: In that case, the Minister of State had better get after the legislation branch of the Northern Ireland Office, Dundonald House, Belfast BT4 for circulating an explanatory document that implies the opposite.

Mr. Rossi: I shall look into that.

Mr. Brynmor John: As the pilot of the Criminal Law Act 1977, I know that the Minister is right. All the £50 fines were uprated to a £400 maximum.

Mr. Rossi: It is pleasing to feel that occasionally a Minister is a little in advance of, if not the law, at any rate his legal advisers. I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's confirmation that that is the legal position. If the memorandum is misleading, I shall look at it and make sure that it is issued in a correct form for the future.
I do not know whether there are any other matters with which hon. Members wish me to deal. I believe that I covered the points of substance.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the draft Tattooing of Minors (Northern Ireland) Order 1979, which was laid before this House on 28 June, be approved.

Orders of the Day — SUNDAY MARKETS

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Waddington.]

1.13 a.m.

Mr. J. F. Pawsey: I rise to speak on the matter of the control of Sunday markets. I make it clear immediately that I am opposed neither to the principle of Sunday markets nor that of Sunday trading. Sunday markets discharge a worthwhile job. That is underlined by the fact that many people visit them. They provide an obviously valuable service and a wide and cheap selection of goods, despite the fifth schedule to and section 47 of the Shops Act 1950. They provide an interesting day out and are a source of considerable amusement. However, the benefits are gained at a cost to the residents who live near the sites of Sunday markets, with the noise of the traffic and fumes, and at a cost to the environment. I refer to the damage caused by many thousands of people who visit those markets and the amount of litter that is deposited. It turns what should be a day of rest into a day of disturbance.
At present, Sunday markets may be established without reference to the police, motoring organisations, residents or indeed to local authorities. Sunday markets are the unacceptable face of retailing. They operate effectively outside the law. They are subject to very little control and appear to have a uniquely privileged position. They do not pay rates and they appear to be unaffected by the legislation concerning health and safety at work. There are few planning regulations, if any, that apply, if Sunday markets are held fewer than 14 times per year. They require no permission from the Ministry of Transport. I also dare say that my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer may be interested in the amount of tax that he may not be getting, because I suspect that Sunday markets help to encourage the growth of the black economy.
Sunday markets, then, can take advantage of the legally complicated division of responsibility that exists. That is a division of responsibility between the Department of the Environment, in regard to planning legislation, and the Home

Office as it relates to Sunday trade and Sunday observance.
Sunday markets require basically three circumstances only. They require a large population to provide adequate turnover and to ensure that there is an effective population using and taking advantage of the market. They require a good communications network, preferably supported by a motorway. They need a large. flat and reasonably open space.
The thought that I put to this House is this: do marketeers and their customers have an overwhelming right to trade, irrespective of the damage to the environment and irrespective of nuisance to local people? I should like to quote from a letter from Wolvey parish council, addressed to my predecessor in this House. The letter is dated 22 March 1979. I had a copy since I am the county councillor for this division. The letter reads:
The Councillors are very concerned "—
that is the parish councillors—
 by the apparent lack of sympathy towards those who suffer from Sunday markets. Stronger legislation is needed to prevent these markets being set up where they cause so much disturbance. The mud that they deposit on the roads is a great danger to road users. The parking on the grass verges and on the approach roads would cause a considerable delay to any emergency services which were needed in case of fire or accident in the villages. Whilst we appreciate that these markets are popular, they should be controlled more and sited away from residential areas. The noise of stallholders arriving at the site begins at about 6.30 a.m. "—
that is on a Sunday morning—
 and carries on until they pack up at night. The litter they leave behind is unsightly, to say the least.
I have described the early start, the congested roads and the problem with noise and fumes. It is a fact that some of my constituents last year were almost prisoners within their own homes. The damage that occurs to their property, drives, fences, walls and hedges is considerable. I do not doubt that Sunday markets may be effectively outside the law, although effectively they are working well inside the green belt. Certainly I accept that Sunday markets are easy to organise. After all, all that is required is that the organiser reaches an arrangement with a land owner. All that is necessary is for the contact to be established with stallholders. Advertisements are then placed in the press and, bingo,


we have instant business. Often the first that local residents know is when they read the advertisements, and those advertisements are very closely followed by the crowds.
I believe that this Government, like the previous one, are of the opinion that there are adequate controls, but I submit that that is not the case. I should like to quote from a letter from the Department of the Environment, dated 13 November 1978, addressed to my predecessor.
The letter said:
 Sunday trading is restricted by the Shops Act 1950, and the adequacy of controls under that Act is a matter for the Home Office. Although the Government are aware of the problems which local authorities face … we are not yet convinced that in relation to Sunday trading the provisions of Part IV of the 1950 Act are inadequate, as a means of controlling breaches of this branch of the law.
On the second issue, the letter said:
 The position under planning legislation is that the holding of a market on not more than 14 days in any calendar year is permitted under Article 3 and Schedule 1 of the General Development Order 1977. However, a local planning authority may make a Direction under Article 4 of that Order which would have the effect for a subsequent year of removing the permitted development right, and so require application to be made for planning permission. For such a Direction to remain in force for more than 6 months, the Secretary of State's approval would be needed.
It appears that there is a remedy, but the reality is different from the theory. My last quotation is from a letter to the Secretary of State for the Environment from Rugby borough council, dated 14 November 1978. The council said:
 The Council has through its appropriate Committees explored all the means available to it to stop the market operating and has come to the conclusion that the powers given to local authorities to deal with such situations are totally inadequate. Local authorities must rely on anachronistic medieval charter rights, planning legislation which can be easily circumvented and which is slow to take effect and Sunday trading laws which were never intended to apply to this situation.
I take up those two issues in the nub of my argument. I should like to examine the lack of control in planning legislation. Article 4 of the Town and Country Planning General Development Order 1977 permits markets to operate without planning permission for 14 days in any calendar year, but since markets operate on only one day a week they are allowed to operate for three and a half months

before a local authority can take action under the Town and Country Planning Act 1971.
I am aware that the local planning authority can serve an enforcement notice earlier if an article 4 direction is in force or if there is sufficient evidence to show that the market is intended to be permanent and not temporary; in other words, if advertisements are placed in local newspapers indicating that the market will be on the site every Sunday. Needless to say, the marketeers ensure that that is not said.
If an enforcement notice is served after the 14 weeks that a market has been on a site, an appeal may be lodged, and we know that that can take up to six months to be heard—during which time the market can continue to trade and cause nuisance. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary may advise me that a " stop " notice can be served, but local authorities are loth to invoke a " stop " notice because they are aware that if it is not upheld by the courts they may be liable for loss of profits, which could be a substantial amount.
The market may move to another site, even to an adjoining field, and the whole circle commences again. For effectively another 14 weeks the market can operate without planning permission, necessitating the service of yet another enforcement notice. If the enforcement notice is upheld and a prosecution is successful for non-compliance, the penalty for a first offence is £400, which I suggest is a derisory amount when one takes into account that in a market of 200 stalls, the one with which I am familiar, the stallholders each pay £12 to the market organiser.
For subsequent offences there is a £50a-day penalty. That is a paltry sum. From experience in my constituency, these fines do not deter offenders.
The second leg of the suggestion concerns the Shops Act 1950. That Act does not in any way seek to make markets illegal and does not even mention Sunday markets. It prohibits the sale of certain goods on Sundays, which was its intention. It was not intended to stop the holding of markets. The Shops Act 1950 can be enforced by the prosecution of individual traders, the land owner and the market organisers for aiding and abetting


or by making an application to the High Court for an injunction.
To carry out those three specific acts basic fundamental evidence is necessary, and practical experience shows that it is difficult to obtain that. In the majority of cases stalls do not display the names and addresses of the holders. When approached the holders refuse to give their names. Stallholders will even go to the extent of covering up the licence plates and tax discs on their vehicles so that the council is not able to trace them, and the vehicle owner is not always the stall owner. Customers who attend Sunday markets will not always co-operate and provide their names and addresses. Without the names and addresses of the alleged offender, no summons can be issued. That is the reality of the situation.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment will take note of the difficulties that local authorities experience and perhaps come forward with positive suggestions—for example, simple licensing of Sunday markets, which could operate through the local authority.

1.25 a.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Marcus Fox): I am grateful to my hon. Friend in his lonely position for raising the matter tonight. In his constituency I think that he has had more trouble than most in this respect. It is a matter of some controversy.
I am sure my hon. Friend will agree that it would be a mistake to attack the principle of market trading. There are many long-established markets which exist under Royal Charter or Acts of Parliament that go back hundreds of years. They provide a valuable outlet for enterprise and initiative, and in no way do I take my hon. Friend's strictures to be attacking such markets. They are popular with shoppers, and many establishments that are household names in this country started in that way.
Although I talk about the acceptable face of these markets, there are operators who cause concern. There is no legal prohibition on new markets being formed. That is as it should be. It would be a sad day if that became yet one more of the rights of the individual to be taken away by well-meaning interference of legislators. Nevertheless, the law recognises that others have rights too

and that the unregulated establishment of markets can interfere with these to an undesirable extent. In particular, they can provide what is seen by established traders as an unwelcome source of unfair competition. They can disrupt a locality, particularly if held in a rural area which cannot cope easily with the traffic, litter and sanitation problems. My hon. Friend has vividly described the problems that they can pose in the particular market to which he referred.
There are, however, a number of controls which already exist to contain these problems. As far as my Department is concerned, the main control is through the planning system, and I shall return to this later. As for Sunday markets, the Shops Act 1950 regulates which goods may be traded on a Sunday. It has been said that the provisions of this Act are difficult to enforce. My hon. Friend spoke of disguising names and number plates. Responsibility for this legislation rests with my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. I am informed, however, that it has been used successfully on a number of occasions. The prosecution of individual stallholders, if they can he identified and traced, may indeed be difficult and ineffective as a means of taking action against the market as a whole. But authorities have the alternative of applying to the High Court for an injunction directed against the organisers of such a market. This course, though expensive when it has to be resorted to, has proved both to be effective in particular instances and to have a wider deterrent effect.
There are other controls which can be used to deal with some of the nuisances that temporary markets can cause in rural areas. The Highways Act, the Road Traffic Act and the Litter Act are all relevant here.
Another restraint on temporary markets is the right that franchise markets have to protection from other markets which might be set up in their area. I have heard this referred to as an " anachronism ". While the right may indeed be old, it is nonetheless effective for that, and I understand that this was the basis for action that was successfully brought against a temporary market operation in my hon. Friend's constituency. I assume that this is now closed or that the people have moved on.
I shall return now to the planning controls which are the responsibility of my Department and which have been criticised as inadequate in respect of temporary markets. The planning system is concerned with the use of land, and the holding of a temporary market on land which is usually used for other purposes counts as a change of use requiring planning permission. Under the Town and Country Planning General Development Order 1977, however, permission is granted for the holding of a temporary market for not more than 14 days in any calendar year. This relates to markets on any day of the week, not just Sundays. This permission was reduced from the 28 days which was at one time allowed and which still applies for most other temporary users of land.
It is sometimes thought that, under the terms of the general development order, people who set out to operate a regular Sunday market may do so for the first 14 days without needing to apply for planning permission. This is not so. The High Court has ruled that a market which is set up to operate on a permanent basis cannot take advantage of provisions relating to temporary uses. Enforcement action can therefore be taken from the start in such circumstances.
In addition, the general development order allows a local planning authority to make a direction under article 4 withdrawing the permission that is otherwise automatically granted by the order. The effect of this would be that a planning application would be required for the use of land for a temporary market. Such a direction can be brought into force immediately and some local authorities have used these specifically to control the holding of Sunday markets.
I am aware of the criticisms that have been made of this procedure. In particular, if the temporary use has already started, then the article 4 direction cannot come into effect until the following calendar year. In addition, the Secretary of State has to approve the direction if it is to remain in force longer than six months. Some local authorities have found in the past that such approval has not always been easy to obtain.
We have to remember, however, that we are dealing with provisions that take away from people their statutory rights.
The case therefore has to be considered very carefully and, like all difficult cases, there is much to be said on both sides.
We have to bear in mind also, that the planning Acts are not convenient catchalls for every subject under the sun. Even when planning permission is required for a temporary market—either because the 14 days have been exhausted or because an article 4 direction is in force—this does not automatically rule out the holding of a market. The usual planning procedures will apply and applications must be considered on their merits and with regard to the planning considerations, and only the planning considerations. The planning system is concerned with the use of land and not with the regulation of competition for established traders or any other worthy, but non-planning considerations.
There has also been criticism of the enforcement provisions to back up the controls that I have just outlined.

Mr. Pawsey: Hear, hear.

Mr. Fox: I am glad that my hon. Friend agrees with that.
Where a market is held in breach of planning controls, the local planning authority can serve an enforcement notice on the owners and occupiers of the land. The effect of this is to require the breach of planning control to be remedied. This would require the offending use of land to cease pending the submission and determination of a planning application. In the event of an appeal to the Secretary of State against an enforcement notice, the notice is suspended until the appeal is determined. This may take some time, as my hon. Friend said.
A more peremptory procedure is, however, available when necessary. This involves the use of a stop notice. It is served following an enforcement notice and can provide for a daily fine if the alleged breach of control continues after a further three days. Stop notices can be used if a temporary market breaches planning controls. This is a result of the Town and Country Planning (Amendment) Act 1977, introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Smith). Where these procedures have proved ineffective, some local authorities have successfully sought High Court injunctions to remedy the problem.
In spite of what my hon. Friend said, and indeed in spite of what he quoted from his local council in Rugby—the letter was dated 4 November 1978, I believe—other courses are open to the local authority. From what I have said, I think it is clear that the law already provides considerable powers to regulate temporary markets. Nevertheless, I recognise the feelings, which my hon. Friend has expressed so ably, that these markets require further action. I know that at least one local authority has seen the need to take local powers to require prior notification of temporary markets. This enables it to decide, for example, whether to resort to an article 4 direction before the market has started.
The local authority associations have now proposed to the Department that such a provision should be embodied in national legislation. This proposal is receiving our careful attention. We would have to be convinced, however, both that a national need existed to justify the legislation and that the proposal was an appropriate means of control. The last thing that I would wish to see would be yet another set of bureaucratic controls unless there was the strongest of justifications. I should also have to look very carefully at any proposals for a special licensing scheme for markets.
1510-1750
Measures that might go some way to meeting the criticisms that have been voiced of the planning enforcement procedures will be included in the forthcoming Local Government Planning and Land Bill. They were suggested by the Dobry report and have been discussed with local authority associations and others. They would help to strengthen the local authorities' powers to take enforcement action. These extra powers, if introduced, would relate generally to enforcement action under section 87 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971.
Therefore, a wide range of controls already exist which are applicable to Sunday markets. Nevertheless, problems can arise in some localities, and we are looking at a number of proposals that have been put forward for dealing with them. I shall look at the inadequate penalties that my hon. Friend has mentioned and we will see what can be done in that respect. I am grateful to him for raising this subject, but I must say to him that I remain to be convinced that the introduction of further controls is necessarily the right way to deal with this matter.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-one minutes to Two o'clock.